The German Coalition

The German SPD, Greens and FDP have concluded their coalition negotiations and published the coalition agreement. It’s called “Dare to make more progress!” It is available from the SPD on their site and I have also put it up on this site. I have also passed it through google translate, and so we can now read it in English, well sort of. Google translate now takes a document as input. Continue reading “The German Coalition”

Class Actions on Privacy

The Supreme Court has blocked a class action against Google claiming breach of privacy. This could be mega. I need to understand if making a class action requires a proof of harm as I was of the view that a breach of rights was enough, although we have written the CFR out of our law via Brexit. As ever my notes … Continue reading “Class Actions on Privacy”

British Army Command & Doctrine

I was prompted by a plaque in the Tank Museum to consider if the Army was always looking back to the last war. It certainly seems to have done poorly in both Iraq & Afghanistan. In fact, once the British were known for winning their wars, but the hostory over the last 40 years is not so good. Looking on Google, about the Army’s institutional memory took me to “Losing the new great game” which discusses, quite critically the management of the military campaigns mainly in Afghanistan. It certainly reinforced some conclusions I had come too and the written paper, is very well referenced for those who want more. Continue reading “British Army Command & Doctrine”

Comparative Advantage

Looking for Dennis Healy’s admiration for how Austria came to terms with its loss of Empire and found ‘Like Romans Becoming Italians’: Italy as the Negative Paradigm for British Decline in the Language of the Press and Denis Healey by Ettore Costa, published it seems in 2018. An interesting read, here are my notes.  i.e. this is a review of the paper, not an essay on the theory of comparative advantage. Continue reading “Comparative Advantage”

Delegates to Conference

The rule on delegate entitlement in Chapter 3 says,

C3.I.1.B. Delegates duly appointed by CLPs to the number of one delegate for the first 749 individual members in the constituency or part thereof paying their membership dues as of 31 December in the previous year, and one further delegate for every additional 250 individual members in the constituency or part thereof. CLPs must also have paid any outstanding insurance premiums and other levies due before their delegation shall be accepted.  To increase the representation of women at Party conference, at least every second delegate from a CLP shall be a woman; where only one delegate is appointed this must be a woman at least in every other year. In a year where a CLP is required to send a female delegate, following a male delegate in the preceding year, but is unable to find one, they will not be entitled to send a man as delegate. In the following year, permission may be granted to send a male delegate if they demonstrate to the conference arrangements committee that they have made every effort to seek a woman delegate.

C3.I.1.C. Where the individual women’s membership in a constituency is 100 or more, an additional woman delegate may be appointed. Where the individual Young Labour membership in a constituency is 30 or more an additional delegate under the age of 27 may be appointed.

WTF does this mean?

I think,

If you have under 750 members, then you get 1 [ordinary/open place] delegate which must not be a man two years in a row. You may add two delegates using Rule ./C.

If you have over 750 members, then every second [ordinary/open place] delegate must be a woman. This means that for an odd sized delegation the delegation must be at least 50% female rounded down, but if the first delegate elected is female, then it’s at least 50% female rounded up. If you have an even number of delegates, then they must be at least 50% female.

It remains unclear what happens if you drop from 751 to less between conferences and had sent a man and a woman in open place positions to the conference prior.

 

Apple vs Otis, FRAND vs FLOSS

I was pointed at Apple vs Otis in the UK Courts. This is an NPE suing Apple for its non-permitted use of a standards essential patent. The court backs Otis and is now assessing a fair licence agreement. Apple say that if it considers it unfair, they’ll with draw from the UK. There is, of course, a post Brexit dimension to this as the British Courts seek to establish a new market for British lawyers since they can no longer practice in Europe. Here are some more links and notes. Continue reading “Apple vs Otis, FRAND vs FLOSS”

Labour’s +ive action for women

I am considering some of the positive action programmes in place in the Labour Party, which are most extensively developed in favour of women. The Labour Party’s rules are subject to the law of the land[s] and possibly the most important part of the positive action programme for women other than all women short lists for candidates for public office is the rule that states that delegations shall be at least 50% women. Does this conflict with the Equality Act? Here are my notes … Continue reading “Labour’s +ive action for women”