If you’re not doing great, wouldn’t it make more sense to try and weather the storm and work to make things sunnier before the next election rather than call for an election amidst the storm?

The latest possible date the election could have been is January 2025, but that was practically very unlikely as i) there is an extremely sharp generational divide in voting intentions (far sharper than in most Western democracies) and January would have meant the Tories having to get their elderly core voters to the polls in the middle of winter, and ii) a January vote would have meant a campaign running over Christmas, and everyone would have punished Sunak for that. The widespread expectation was for an autumn election.

It’s unclear why Sunak jumped earlier but likely a combination of various factors:

• them being worried the economy will not get better by the autumn (so avoids going to the polls after a summer of bad economic news);

• going early means their main opponents on the right (Reform) don’t have time to get their act together and select candidates in all seats (which they would have done by the autumn);

• their flagship immigration policy is controversial and expensive, yet likely to have an underwhelming impact on illegal immigration levels, and they’ll look like complete idiots for centring an autumn election on a ‘stop the boats’ slogan if there’s another summer of small boat arrivals in the meantime; and

• Sunak personally is fed up - he’s very much a political child of the far-right (an avowed Brexiter long before Boris Johnson or Liz Truss converted to the cause) yet the far-right of the Tory Party don’t see him as one of their own and have been constant thorns in his side throughout his leadership - he may just want out at this stage.

All of our constitutional law takes the form of Acts of Parliament that can be amended or repealed with a 50%+1 vote in Parliament - unlike most countries where the constitution sits above the parliament and changing it requires a supermajority and/or a referendum. Boris had a majority so he could change the constitution. It’s a totally messed up system.

One reason British liberals as so passionate about internationalism and the European Union is that international treaties and EU law are some of the few mechanisms we have had for constraining executive overreach, since they sit outside and above Parliament’s remit. For example, even if Parliament were to repeal the Human Rights Act, Britain remains a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (which is why some Tories now talk about withdrawing from this too). Without international safeguards external to the UK, in theory all that stands between Britain and despotism is a simple majority vote in Parliament.

It’s a corrupt convention but it wasn’t always the case. An important reform by the 2010-15 coalition government was the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which took this incredibly important decision out of the prime minister’s partisan hands and have elections on a predictable 5 year cycle (barring the government falling or a supermajority for early elections).

After Boris Johnson won the 2019 election though, he set about dismantling checks and balances such as this. He also changed the electoral system for mayoral elections to First Past the Post (with no consultation or referendum - which the Tories have always insisted was needed to change the electoral system away from FPTP…) because FPTP tends to favour Tories.

Forth, and fear no darkness.

150 duck-sized sycamore trees or 1 sycamore-tree-sized duck?

I Call Modi ‘A Fucking Fascist’ Who Would Take India’s Freedom, Diversity And Democracy

I assume that’s the reaction they were going for by expressing the stat in that way, but aside from shock value it isn’t that informative.

Child mortality is usually expressed as ‘X per 1,000 live births’ so you have some sense of scale. We’ll never live in a world where zero children die before their 5th birthday (simply because of illnesses and accidents) but expressing the number of deaths per 1,000 gives you a sense of whether the number of deaths is a lot or not.

Here’s a UNICEF article that provides some more context on the 4.9 million global figure for under-5 deaths: ‘The global under-five mortality rate declined by 60 per cent, from 93 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 37 in 2022.’ To add more context on 37 per 1,000: in San Marino that figure is about 1.5, in the United Kingdom it’s about 4.1, whereas in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa it remains above 100 deaths per 1,000 live births - which I find to be a frankly much more informative and terrifying way of understanding the number.

In general I get that and my instinct was similarly that it was strange not to use the word. I’d use Taoiseach for Varadkar in a way I wouldn’t use the native language word for other world leaders, because I think of Ireland as a primarily English-speaking country and that’s the word they still use whilst otherwise speaking in English.

But then again, I can also see that British readers like you and I who follow current affairs are going to be a lot more familiar with the term Taoiseach (or, in Calamity Truss’s case, the ‘Tea Sock’) given it’s the country next door and so hugely intertwined with British politics. I could name every Taoiseach in the last quarter century just by virtue of how much those individuals have featured in UK news - through the peace process, the financial crisis and then Brexit. I couldn’t do that for the leaders of any other foreign country of Ireland’s size. So I think it’s not unreasonable to assume the average US or other reader might not not know what a Taoiseach is.

I mean I suppose there are a few ways you could read this.

One is that the NYT article was inaccurate - it wouldn’t be the first time that fake news around this conflict has travelled halfway around the world before the truth has had its breakfast.

But another interpretation is that tight-knit communities don’t want the full horror of the final moments of these girls and women to be so publicly exposed to the world. The article points out that the NYT article effectively identified the individuals and that can’t have been a helpful experience for their surviving families and friends.

There is very little to read into this. Rochdale is an unusual constituency, Galloway is an unusually high profile candidate, there was no official Labour or Green candidate. Still, he failed to even win 40% of the vote yesterday.

This sort of thing is his speciality. He’s personally won three seats from Labour over the last few decades but never in circumstances that can be repeated by other candidates in other seats. This will be no different.

Also he’s a deeply unpleasant individual. It’s frustrating that the false charge of antisemitism gets thrown round like confetti by supporters of the Netanyahu regime, because when an actual bonafide antisemite like Galloway comes along people don’t realise that this time the shoe does fit. His previous support for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is total horseshoe theory stuff.

Totally. In my alternative scenario where she was a blonde-haired blue-eyed white girl called Shania, the Daily Express would have turned her into a Madeleine McCann-like figure and campaigned every day on their front pages to ‘bring our girl home’.

A child who was groomed and sex trafficked by terrorists is now being punished for it. Also this is a punishment that is only being applied to her because she has Bangladeshi ancestors so the government argues she is hypothetically eligible for a Bangladeshi passport (which the government of Bangladesh has no intention of giving her), and so the Tories can pretend they’re not illegally rendering her stateless.

This is literally a punishment that, by the Tories’ own formulation of their rule, would not be applied if the sex trafficking victim was a white girl called Shania with English parents instead of a brown girl called Shamima.

We’re supposed to be a country where people are treated equally before the law. But the Tories are now claiming that they and any future government has the right to render any Briton with some hypothetical right to a foreign passport (for example, most second generation immigrants and every single Jewish Briton) stateless at the whim of the home secretary.

It’s more than just a product of it - it’s the main factor.

Over the last half century or so, the UK has experienced around 200 civilian deaths from Islamic terrorism and around 2,000 civilian deaths from Irish terrorism. Which community do you think the far-right in the UK tend to target?

Muslim immigrants will have de facto faced as much (if not far more) hostility and prejudice before any of those events.

What changed is that by the late 20th century, it had become politically unacceptable for right-wing parties to be perceived to be preying on overt racism towards their countries’ brown-skinned citizens. But the War on Terror at the start of the 21st century created a new organising framework for nativists, whereby they could incite hatred against exactly the same brown-skinned people as before, but claim they were targeting them for their religion and not their skin colour. At the heart of it is still the same prejudice towards those who are different, it’s just that the aspect of difference they choose to focus on today is more politically acceptable than the one they used to focus on.

From the perspective of a brown-skinned Muslim immigrant, the ideological hoops the far-right jump through are likely irrelevant. These people were targeted by nativists before, and they get targeted by nativists now.

I mean, bigotry and unenforceability aside, it’s also pretty unambiguously illegal.

Italy is a signatory to the ECHR which creates an explicit right to privacy (Article 8) and freedom of religion (Article 9).

The Italian constitution itself also specifies a right to religious equality before the law (Article 8).

I was similarly pretty confused here that it was referring to the little seaside town in Yorkshire, which I assume all these other Scarboroughs (that I too had never heard of) are named after.

Humza Yousaf became the first Muslim head of state in western Europe in 2023 when he was appointed First Minister of Scotland.

This is a really specific point, but the sub-heading irks me in several ways.

First, how do so many people not know the difference between a head of state and a head of government? Scotland’s head of state is Charles III.

Second, by what definition is Yousaf the first Muslim head of government in western Europe? I assume they must at least mean ‘in western Europe in the modern era’, since various parts of Iberia obviously had Muslim rulers for over seven centuries in the Middle Ages.

Third, Scotland isn’t an independent state, and the head of government of the United Kingdom is Rishi Sunak. So if they’re counting Humza Yousaf, that means they’re counting leaders at sub-national levels of government (such as devolved government in the UK, Länder in Germany, etc). But if they’re counting devolved government, why does Humza Yousaf (first minister of Scotland, population 5.4 million, since 2023) count but Sadiq Khan (mayor of London, population 8.8 million, since 2016) apparently doesn’t?

Anyway it was two right-wingers in the second round so

A centrist, europhile, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism, former patron of Helsinki’s Pride event, vs the literal Green League candidate.

Bed bugs eunt domus!

For most things, the European Council already decides things by qualified majority voting (typically requiring the support of 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU’s population). This was enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. But extending QMV to matters that currently need unanimity would require treaty changes, which by definition would need every EU member to sign up. There are limited incentives for smaller members (let alone problematic members like Hungary) to agree to more QMV since unanimity gives them disproportionate influence.