Good question. We record most of our events - you can find them at www.youtube.com/@MileEndInst... - but I'm not certain on this one, as we're co-hosting. Perhaps @mileendinstitute.bsky.social could confirm?
On Friday, CEREES & the @mileendinstitute.bsky.social will be hosting former Foreign Minister of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, to launch his book "Words of Defiance".
Join @philippesands.bsky.social @okhromeychuk.bsky.social & Bjorn Berge to explore the forms, prospects & importance of Ukrainian defiance
Multiple oil spills are visible from space after Iranian and US-Israeli strikes hit oil facilities and ships in the region, with experts warning of an impending environmental catastrophe. https://cnn.it/3Ovxzwk
Meg leaves very big shoes to fill, but fortunately @alanrenwick.bsky.social has big constitutional feet.
He'll be a brilliant director and it's great to know that the Constitution Unit is in such good hands for the future.
Meg Russell has done a fantastic job at the @conunitucl.bsky.social since 2015.
In a pretty stormy period for the Constitution - with Brexit, the Miller cases, the suspension of Parliament, Covid & the Johnson/Cummings era - the Unit has been the indispensable place for impartial academic analysis.
I, too, find this unfathomable, but Robbins seems convinced that he was right (or even required) not to do so & many seasoned govt watchers agree with him. This may be the one element in the whole affair (whether the Foreign Office should have told the PM) on which public opinion sides with Starmer.
I am not imagining such a situation. I was simply disagreeing with your initial claim that this was "a side issue", the preoccupation with which showed "the British political class at its worst".
I don't think that follows. Robbins himself seems to be insisting he could not tell Number 10 about the security recommendation.
That still leaves plenty of serious charges to be answered, & I'm not writing this to defend Starmer. But the constitutional issue isn't just a distraction - it matters.
I've not yet read the whole Robbins testimony,but am starting to think he may not have. The claim DS wasn't told about the security vetting seemed preposterous at first but now looks plausible. That still leaves the misjudgment, lack of grip & other failings, but maybe not the constitutional offence
I don't think that's fair. The question in the Robbins case isn't really "who said what?" or "who gave the clearance?" It's "did the PM mislead Parliament?" That IS an important question: it's one of the "guardrails" of parliamentary democracy - & we've seen what happens when we don't uphold those.
Three year postdoc going at @qmulsse.bsky.social working with @karlpike.bsky.social on ‘Politics and mythmaking: disentangling myth from ideology’, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. Details here:
Yes, it's not a partisan bias (though one or two presenters have a strong idea of "common sense" which is strikingly right-leaning). It's just a dreadful approach to interviewing. The World At One's interviews are generally much better.
It was a dreadful interview - really sneering and supercilious. It's not about giving anyone an easy ride, but as listeners we don't learn anything when the interviewee can never complete a sentence. There's a difference between a tough interview (which is revealing) and a barracking (which is not).
There are currently 6 permanent full time history jobs in the whole UK. 500+ PhDs being produced a year - not all of whom will want to pursue an academic year but likely most, and of course years will stack up onto each other. What a sector.
Sorry - just seen your other reply. Very helpful, thank you.
Thanks. You're right that I phrased that wrongly: but could "the final outcome" not apply to the outcome of the UK Security Vetting process, and the recommendation it made, rather than to the outcome of the FCDO's decision? It seems astonishing not to tell Downing Street about the former.
It's very unlikely Starmer would "do a Corbyn" & defy a no confidence vote by MPs: 1) because he doesn't have Corbyn's base in the membership; 2) because Starmer is not a Bennite, like Corbyn; & 3) because Starmer is prime minister, not LOTO, & a PM cannot govern w/out the confidence of Parliament.
Does "the final outcome" here not include "he failed security vetting"? (Genuine question - crazed final weeks of term and mini-holiday mean I'm behind on the detail). It seems extraordinary that that would be withheld.
I think Streeting is genuinely interesting, and he's a very good communicator - which corrects one of Starmer's big problems. But he's entangled in the Mandelson affair himself, is in danger of losing his seat and is loathed by a section of the membership. So he's unlikely to win a contest.
A GENTLE REMINDER: we are trying to eliminate fossil fuels because using them kills us.
If fossil fuels were cheap (they're not) or reliable (they're SO NOT), it would still be urgent to get rid of them because their intended use destroys our life support systems.
I don't think that's ever been proven. But there were multiple reports that May (not Truss) denied him access to some intelligence material - though whether because of concerns about his discretion or May's reluctance to share information is unclear.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-poli...
We would be blessed to have such a president.
The only thing he'd be dropping on the Straits of Hormuz would be sausages.
... & Streeting also caught up in the Mandelson story is not ideal timing, especially if you're also going to paralyse govt for 3 months during an energy crisis. It's not mad to consider these issues - indeed, it would be irresponsible not to, if it's a war of choice. Things *can* always get worse.
If he fell ill, or was found to have mislead Parliament, there would have to be a contest. FWIW, I was always a Starmer-sceptic & suspect Streeting, Burnham & (maybe) Rayner would all be better. But the discussion was about timing. A time when Rayner is under investigation, Burnham is ineligible...
Burnham isn't an MP so can't stand. Rayner is awaiting the conclusion of an investigation into her tax affairs.
Energy support. And having a bunch of candidates competing with each other to show how much they want to help "ordinary, hard-working families whose bills are going up" is not going to be great for serious policy-making.
Though some times may be worse than others: e.g. because the alternatives are waiting for a tax inquiry to finish or are not currently MPs, or because huge spending decisions may be needed during a contest. It may have to happen - if a PM misleads Parlt, they must go - but the timing is really bad.
How do I read to the end of an endless thread? Aarghh....!
There may be circs in which a govt (not an individual) needs to seek a new mandate: eg Baldwin in 1923,who wanted to break his party's commitments on tariffs. I argued last year that Lab should call an election to release itself from its tax pledges. But that's distinct from the person of the leader
If we want leaders with personal mandates, directly elected by "the people", we should do it properly & create a presidency. If we want a *parliamentary* democracy, it is essential to that system that Parliament can remove & replace the PM. (And that Parliament does this, not a private corporation).