Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding over the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
"Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.
That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.
Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation. If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
I mean the former.
If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.
It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.
There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
I didn't say anything about the law, I was referring to Parliament's ability to change the law. That's different.
Do you deny that if Parliament is unhappy with how the law is applied that they can change the law for going forwards?
I specifically agreed that Parliament should NOT pass retrospective changes. Though it does have the ability to do so too, I find it extremely unethical to do it.
Seems pretty clear thats the plan though. The rules do not apply to them. If a court makes a judgement they don't like, just strike it down.
I agree that parliament is free to pass any law that it sees fit, including laws that reverse court rulings. But you and I both know that this lot have zero interest in the rule of law so won't bother to wait for the new law to pass before ignoring the existing law.
The police never investigate the past apparently. So why would they investigate ministers in flagrant breach of a law they are about to change?
What Johnson is proposing would allow the government to extend its life indefinitely. Should it become law it would end our democracy. Johnson is often described as an instinctive libertarian. That. of course, is nonsense. From making it harder to vote and removing the right to public protest to making UK citizens less able as individuals to live, work and study where they choose, he has presided over the removal of more personal freedoms than any other peacetime Prime Minister in modern British history. He has no attachment to democracy. The only liberty he has any interest in is his own.
It really is extraordinarily. The government is simultaneously working with its favoured press to drip-feed exactly the opposite story, to its voters. According to the Daily Mail today here, Raab is seeking to "protect British freedom of speech from the drift towards Continental-style privacy laws".
This is designed to please liberarians on the right, like anti-mask wearers. What its actually about is a compact with the favourable press, to allow them to continue raising revenue, while favourably supporting the government through all its extremely concerning changes on governmental accountability and freedom. The term "Orwellian" has become a vastly over-used cliche, but it really is appropriate now.
Ian Hislop recently said he thought a modern day Maxwell could hide behind 'privacy' laws to stop the press revealing what he did wrong.
The balance between a free press and 'privacy' has gone far too far the illiberal direction in recent years. If the press print something that is false, then that can be libel but if they print something that is true then truth should be an absolute defence.
We need the equivalent of the US First Amendment.
Hislop's point would have more force if the press had in fact exposed Maxwell. But they didn't. It was legal and financial investigations after his death which did that.
I don't believe for a moment that the government is concerned about privacy laws by stealth. Such laws would suit those in power very well indeed. On the contrary they are simply using this to attack judges making decisions - completely ignoring the fact that in a common law system case law ie decisions by judges is how the law develops.
On the Xmas party issue last year, I only say this. I have sympathy on a personal level with people who have been working hard together wanting to celebrate at the end of the working day. Lots of us feel like that and felt in need of some human contact at the end of last year after what was a shit year.
But for the first time ever in my life, we had Xmas with my family all separated. I had not seen my two sons for months. Nor had my Daughter. We were apart from my husband. The result of that was that he and one of my sons caught Covid. I did not see my brother either, who lives alone. Daughter lost business because of the rules which were in place. It was a tough time.
I am utterly fucked off with having people in power who cannot be arsed to even try to follow the rules they impose on the rest of us, who can't be bothered to admit it when they get it wrong, who lie to us openly and brazenly and who talk nonsense at us because they have utter contempt for us.
Now we have this crackdown on drug misuse. Yeah - whatever. MPs are doubtless flouting the rules and will suffer no consequences for doing so. But if Daughter were to break any of the rules she is under the police and licensing authorities would be on to her like a ton of bricks.
I am sick of this, sick of being taken granted, sick of a ruling class which treats those of us who try to do the right thing as mugs. I am weary and cynical at it all. But I am also absolutely furious at how this shower of lying, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and amoral twats are destroying a political culture which, for all its faults, used to try and stand for something worthwhile.
Now you’re thinking like a Scot. Welcome aboard!
Only 80 miles from the border. Can - on a clear day - see into bonny Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
But have always been with you in spirit. Remember I'm Irish: we kicked the English out some time ago ...... 😁
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
It's almost everywhere. It speeds up people's capacity to process information so well that many people under all sorts of social and time pressures have come to see it as nothing exceptional.
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
William was, of course not only illegitimate himself, but he wasn't backward in putting himself about. But I thought everyone in England could, theoretically, trace their lineage as far as Edward I. Personally on my fathers side I appear to go back to Welsh peasantry. On my mother's side, I'm not so sure. Her maiden name appears to have appeared in Leicestershire about 1500, although no-one seems quite sure from where.
They behave like arseholes. While giving you an incessant monologue of their tedious opinions and ideas. And feel super confidently ecstatic while so doing.
Everyone who signs up to pb.com should get 1kg sent to them automatically via Monopoly.
Good morning everyone. Colder again, and rain is forecast. Rain can, if course, be expected in a British winter. Crackdown..... there's an appropriate word in the circumstances .... after crackdown has been tried in the 'War on Drugs' and doesn't seem to work. What would work is legalising one or two 'softer drugs', unless of course cocaine use, prevalent, certainly at one time, AIUI, among the nobility and gentry, is now so widespread that it's the drug of choice.
And if it is, then the war has been well and truly lost, and we'll have to think of a completely new strategy.
Several decades of Western drugs policy have been a total failure.
You either need to go down the full Bangkok / Dubai route, and throw users in prison for personal amounts - or you legalise them and sell drugs in pharmacies, rather than on the street.
When I were a lad the only places one could buy alcohol other than pubs were off-licences, possibly attached to grocers, but by no means all grocers. In some place pharmacies had them too. Now one can buy take-away alcohol very easily and we have more a problem with street drinking. I wonder if there's a connection.
Morning OKC. Nice header by Cyclefree.
As for pubs, some pubs round here in Scotland's central belt were Goths on the Swedish model, and a few still are:
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
That's true. Cocaine use, for instance, crossed the class lines from City to council estate long ago, to become endemic. In fact, in the case of that drug, it's arguably also contributed to the increasing selfishness of our entire society over the last few decades.
You make a good point. I'm not a raving anti drugs person, far from it, but cocaine really brings out the worst in people. They behave like arseholes. While giving you an incessant monologue of their tedious opinions and ideas. And feel super confidently ecstatic while so doing.
Um... for some bizarre reason that made me think of one or two PB posters.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
And that travesty of a judgement, where Remainer judges started with their conclusion and worked backwards, has led directly to this...!
Whereas of course “HolesBayView” is an eminent jurist on constitutional law.
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
I don't want to agree with you, obviously, but I think you are right. It's the voters in Uxbridge who should decide whether this PM is of suitable moral to be an MP.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
That's true. Cocaine use, for instance, crossed the class lines from City to council estate long ago, to become endemic. In fact, in the case of that drug, it's arguably also contributed to the increasing selfishness of our entire society over the last few decades.
You make a good point. I'm not a raving anti drugs person, far from it, but cocaine really brings out the worst in people. They behave like arseholes. While giving you an incessant monologue of their tedious opinions and ideas. And feel super confidently ecstatic while so doing.
Yes. My son, a respectable m/c lad, dabbled with cocaine a few years back, along with all his mates. He stopped (and I found out) because he had a pretty serious accident while under the influence - tore his ear to shreds. He now recognises what an arsehole he was.
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
I’m sure you’re right on the technicality here, but the enthusiasm with which you say it, and your bitchy last sentence, tell me you are a no real friend of the rule of law.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
"Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.
That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.
Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation. If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
I mean the former.
If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.
It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.
There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
I didn't say anything about the law, I was referring to Parliament's ability to change the law. That's different.
Do you deny that if Parliament is unhappy with how the law is applied that they can change the law for going forwards?
I specifically agreed that Parliament should NOT pass retrospective changes. Though it does have the ability to do so too, I find it extremely unethical to do it.
Seems pretty clear thats the plan though. The rules do not apply to them. If a court makes a judgement they don't like, just strike it down.
I agree that parliament is free to pass any law that it sees fit, including laws that reverse court rulings. But you and I both know that this lot have zero interest in the rule of law so won't bother to wait for the new law to pass before ignoring the existing law.
The police never investigate the past apparently. So why would they investigate ministers in flagrant breach of a law they are about to change?
What Johnson is proposing would allow the government to extend its life indefinitely. Should it become law it would end our democracy. Johnson is often described as an instinctive libertarian. That. of course, is nonsense. From making it harder to vote and removing the right to public protest to making UK citizens less able as individuals to live, work and study where they choose, he has presided over the removal of more personal freedoms than any other peacetime Prime Minister in modern British history. He has no attachment to democracy. The only liberty he has any interest in is his own.
It really is extraordinarily. The government is simultaneously working with its favoured press to drip-feed exactly the opposite story, to its voters. According to the Daily Mail today here, Raab is seeking to "protect British freedom of speech from the drift towards Continental-style privacy laws".
This is designed to please liberarians on the right, like anti-mask wearers. What its actually about is a compact with the favourable press, to allow them to continue raising revenue, while favourably supporting the government through all its extremely concerning changes on governmental accountability and freedom. The term "Orwellian" has become a vastly over-used cliche, but it really is appropriate now.
Ian Hislop recently said he thought a modern day Maxwell could hide behind 'privacy' laws to stop the press revealing what he did wrong.
The balance between a free press and 'privacy' has gone far too far the illiberal direction in recent years. If the press print something that is false, then that can be libel but if they print something that is true then truth should be an absolute defence.
We need the equivalent of the US First Amendment.
Hislop's point would have more force if the press had in fact exposed Maxwell. But they didn't. It was legal and financial investigations after his death which did that.
I don't believe for a moment that the government is concerned about privacy laws by stealth. Such laws would suit those in power very well indeed. On the contrary they are simply using this to attack judges making decisions - completely ignoring the fact that in a common law system case law ie decisions by judges is how the law develops.
On the Xmas party issue last year, I only say this. I have sympathy on a personal level with people who have been working hard together wanting to celebrate at the end of the working day. Lots of us feel like that and felt in need of some human contact at the end of last year after what was a shit year.
But for the first time ever in my life, we had Xmas with my family all separated. I had not seen my two sons for months. Nor had my Daughter. We were apart from my husband. The result of that was that he and one of my sons caught Covid. I did not see my brother either, who lives alone. Daughter lost business because of the rules which were in place. It was a tough time.
I am utterly fucked off with having people in power who cannot be arsed to even try to follow the rules they impose on the rest of us, who can't be bothered to admit it when they get it wrong, who lie to us openly and brazenly and who talk nonsense at us because they have utter contempt for us.
Now we have this crackdown on drug misuse. Yeah - whatever. MPs are doubtless flouting the rules and will suffer no consequences for doing so. But if Daughter were to break any of the rules she is under the police and licensing authorities would be on to her like a ton of bricks.
I am sick of this, sick of being taken granted, sick of a ruling class which treats those of us who try to do the right thing as mugs. I am weary and cynical at it all. But I am also absolutely furious at how this shower of lying, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and amoral twats are destroying a political culture which, for all its faults, used to try and stand for something worthwhile.
That's not a political manifesto - but if anyone could harness that sentiment, they'd probably win a majority at the next election.
Yep. Quite frankly the Conservatives have been in power too long again. Time for change, but I doubt it will come soon enough.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
William and his “Normans” *were* Scandinavians. One bunch of Scandinavians just duffed up another bunch of Scandinavians.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
"Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.
That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.
Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation. If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
I mean the former.
If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.
It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.
There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
I didn't say anything about the law, I was referring to Parliament's ability to change the law. That's different.
Do you deny that if Parliament is unhappy with how the law is applied that they can change the law for going forwards?
I specifically agreed that Parliament should NOT pass retrospective changes. Though it does have the ability to do so too, I find it extremely unethical to do it.
Seems pretty clear thats the plan though. The rules do not apply to them. If a court makes a judgement they don't like, just strike it down.
I agree that parliament is free to pass any law that it sees fit, including laws that reverse court rulings. But you and I both know that this lot have zero interest in the rule of law so won't bother to wait for the new law to pass before ignoring the existing law.
The police never investigate the past apparently. So why would they investigate ministers in flagrant breach of a law they are about to change?
What Johnson is proposing would allow the government to extend its life indefinitely. Should it become law it would end our democracy. Johnson is often described as an instinctive libertarian. That. of course, is nonsense. From making it harder to vote and removing the right to public protest to making UK citizens less able as individuals to live, work and study where they choose, he has presided over the removal of more personal freedoms than any other peacetime Prime Minister in modern British history. He has no attachment to democracy. The only liberty he has any interest in is his own.
It really is extraordinarily. The government is simultaneously working with its favoured press to drip-feed exactly the opposite story, to its voters. According to the Daily Mail today here, Raab is seeking to "protect British freedom of speech from the drift towards Continental-style privacy laws".
This is designed to please liberarians on the right, like anti-mask wearers. What its actually about is a compact with the favourable press, to allow them to continue raising revenue, while favourably supporting the government through all its extremely concerning changes on governmental accountability and freedom. The term "Orwellian" has become a vastly over-used cliche, but it really is appropriate now.
Ian Hislop recently said he thought a modern day Maxwell could hide behind 'privacy' laws to stop the press revealing what he did wrong.
The balance between a free press and 'privacy' has gone far too far the illiberal direction in recent years. If the press print something that is false, then that can be libel but if they print something that is true then truth should be an absolute defence.
We need the equivalent of the US First Amendment.
Hislop's point would have more force if the press had in fact exposed Maxwell. But they didn't. It was legal and financial investigations after his death which did that.
I don't believe for a moment that the government is concerned about privacy laws by stealth. Such laws would suit those in power very well indeed. On the contrary they are simply using this to attack judges making decisions - completely ignoring the fact that in a common law system case law ie decisions by judges is how the law develops.
On the Xmas party issue last year, I only say this. I have sympathy on a personal level with people who have been working hard together wanting to celebrate at the end of the working day. Lots of us feel like that and felt in need of some human contact at the end of last year after what was a shit year.
But for the first time ever in my life, we had Xmas with my family all separated. I had not seen my two sons for months. Nor had my Daughter. We were apart from my husband. The result of that was that he and one of my sons caught Covid. I did not see my brother either, who lives alone. Daughter lost business because of the rules which were in place. It was a tough time.
I am utterly fucked off with having people in power who cannot be arsed to even try to follow the rules they impose on the rest of us, who can't be bothered to admit it when they get it wrong, who lie to us openly and brazenly and who talk nonsense at us because they have utter contempt for us.
Now we have this crackdown on drug misuse. Yeah - whatever. MPs are doubtless flouting the rules and will suffer no consequences for doing so. But if Daughter were to break any of the rules she is under the police and licensing authorities would be on to her like a ton of bricks.
I am sick of this, sick of being taken granted, sick of a ruling class which treats those of us who try to do the right thing as mugs. I am weary and cynical at it all. But I am also absolutely furious at how this shower of lying, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant and amoral twats are destroying a political culture which, for all its faults, used to try and stand for something worthwhile.
Now you’re thinking like a Scot. Welcome aboard!
Only 80 miles from the border. Can - on a clear day - see into bonny Scotland from the top of Black Combe.
But have always been with you in spirit. Remember I'm Irish: we kicked the English out some time ago ...... 😁
Good morning everyone. Colder again, and rain is forecast. Rain can, if course, be expected in a British winter. Crackdown..... there's an appropriate word in the circumstances .... after crackdown has been tried in the 'War on Drugs' and doesn't seem to work. What would work is legalising one or two 'softer drugs', unless of course cocaine use, prevalent, certainly at one time, AIUI, among the nobility and gentry, is now so widespread that it's the drug of choice.
And if it is, then the war has been well and truly lost, and we'll have to think of a completely new strategy.
Several decades of Western drugs policy have been a total failure.
You either need to go down the full Bangkok / Dubai route, and throw users in prison for personal amounts - or you legalise them and sell drugs in pharmacies, rather than on the street.
When I were a lad the only places one could buy alcohol other than pubs were off-licences, possibly attached to grocers, but by no means all grocers. In some place pharmacies had them too. Now one can buy take-away alcohol very easily and we have more a problem with street drinking. I wonder if there's a connection.
Morning OKC. Nice header by Cyclefree.
As for pubs, some pubs round here in Scotland's central belt were Goths on the Swedish model, and a few still are:
Another snippet of previously unknown facts. Somewhat similar to the pubs in Carlisle, although I don't the profits from those were used for public benefaction.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
I don't think teachers are subject to the random and mandatory drug testing that many bankers are subject to.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
It's almost everywhere. It speeds up people's capacity to process information so well that many people under all sorts of social and time pressures have come to see it as nothing exceptional.
Oh bollocks to that! I had an immensely pressured job in which I had to process a huge amount of information under all sorts of pressures. I did not need cocaine to do so. The problems I had to sort out were generally caused by people under the influence of it OTOH. Can't say it did much for their judgment or anything else frankly.
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
I’m sure you’re right on the technicality here, but the enthusiasm with which you say it, and your bitchy last sentence, tell me you are a no real friend of the rule of law.
I do respect the rule of law, but if the courts start second guessing things that they have no standing to determine, then that is not the rule of law is it?
Matters that are for the rule of law should be determined in court in the first place, not by the PM. If the PM is defined as the arbiter of the Code as he is then its for the public and Parliament to determine who they want to be PM.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
That is sad. The truth of course these days is that most people in financial services are geeks, with morality no better or worse than any other profession. Commodities is still rough around the edges of course.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
What do you do when a whole range of drugs, from the often socially damaging like cocaine, to others that are increasingly researched as doing less damage, or actually helping some people, only in the right carefully judged conditions and moderation, are endemic in society ?
I don't know. One thing you certainly don't do is double down on a failing policy - further restrictions on liberties, for a few cheap culture war headlines in the press about students, and to redirect attention away from drugs in your own toilets.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
The FDA are just standing up for their members.
£340,000 was paid out to the person that accused Patel of bullying.
It is right we know more about it, as taxpayers, we paid for it.
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
How does that have any relevance to driving theory? Presumably it is in there to make people think twice about driving.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
William was, of course not only illegitimate himself, but he wasn't backward in putting himself about. But I thought everyone in England could, theoretically, trace their lineage as far as Edward I. Personally on my fathers side I appear to go back to Welsh peasantry. On my mother's side, I'm not so sure. Her maiden name appears to have appeared in Leicestershire about 1500, although no-one seems quite sure from where.
Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived is an easy and engaging read on the subject for descendency. Recommended.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
People act like prorogation was some constitutional outrage or that the monarch should have intervened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Until the Supreme Court invented the grounds for overturning the prorogation it was entirely legal.
The standard due process for having one was followed in full. It is worth remembering that England's prior court before the Supreme Court had ruled that the prorogation was legal. If that ruling had been upheld by the Supreme Court instead of being overturned, then on what grounds should the Queen have pre-empted it by denying the prorogation?
The Supreme Court issued its ruling, which was then implemented, but prior courts had disagreed, so its not like the issue was always obvious which way it would go.
Because this country used to be built on basic principles of right and wrong.
Exactly, on the grounds that he was trying to use it as a means to force a policy (no deal Brexit) through for which he did not have a Commons majority.
It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, but was nodded through by our have puppet Monarch.
Good morning everyone. Colder again, and rain is forecast. Rain can, if course, be expected in a British winter. Crackdown..... there's an appropriate word in the circumstances .... after crackdown has been tried in the 'War on Drugs' and doesn't seem to work. What would work is legalising one or two 'softer drugs', unless of course cocaine use, prevalent, certainly at one time, AIUI, among the nobility and gentry, is now so widespread that it's the drug of choice.
And if it is, then the war has been well and truly lost, and we'll have to think of a completely new strategy.
Several decades of Western drugs policy have been a total failure.
You either need to go down the full Bangkok / Dubai route, and throw users in prison for personal amounts - or you legalise them and sell drugs in pharmacies, rather than on the street.
When I were a lad the only places one could buy alcohol other than pubs were off-licences, possibly attached to grocers, but by no means all grocers. In some place pharmacies had them too. Now one can buy take-away alcohol very easily and we have more a problem with street drinking. I wonder if there's a connection.
Morning OKC. Nice header by Cyclefree.
As for pubs, some pubs round here in Scotland's central belt were Goths on the Swedish model, and a few still are:
Another snippet of previously unknown facts. Somewhat similar to the pubs in Carlisle, although I don't the profits from those were used for public benefaction.
Somewhat different situation. The Carlisle/Gretna pubs (and Enfield apparently) were compulsorily nationalised to prevent booze screwing up the local munitions/explosives production. So yes the profits were used for public benefit, if only to reduce taxes by some minimal amount!
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
I don't think teachers are subject to the random and mandatory drug testing that many bankers are subject to.
IIRC he was caught doing a line on the sink counter in the bogs. In public view....
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
I don't want to agree with you, obviously, but I think you are right. It's the voters in Uxbridge who should decide whether this PM is of suitable moral to be an MP.
If the PM has broken the law the courts have a right (obligation) to determine that. The FDA clearly has a right to ask the court to consider it.
If no law has been broken then the courts will presumably say so.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
Sweden is actually worse than us or say Spain or the Commonwealth realms on this. In Sweden the monarch no longer has the power to call elections, the PM has that power alone and the monarch also has no power to remove the PM, the speaker alone has the power to do so.
So if the PM and speaker of the Swedish parliament are of the same party in theory they could agree to postpone elections indefinitely.
Interesting. Thanks.
Though the Swedish constitution does say elections are held every 4 years. So they'd have to change the constitution first.
Thinking about the unlawful attempt to suspend the UK parliament in 2019, it was the supreme court, not the monarch (who just did what the PM told her to do), which saved the British constitution.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
Me too - relatives and friends in my case. Not least because I wonder about the situation for those in/from Northern Ireland (though not just them).
According the the Guardian, today "10.30am: The high court gives its ruling in a case brought by the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, challenging Boris Johnson’s decision to ignore the ruling that Priti Patel, the home secretary, broke the ministerial code by bullying civil servants."
Could have 'interesting' consequences.
The FDA and the courts should have no standing on this.
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
I don't want to agree with you, obviously, but I think you are right. It's the voters in Uxbridge who should decide whether this PM is of suitable moral to be an MP.
If the PM has broken the law the courts have a right (obligation) to determine that. The FDA clearly has a right to ask the court to consider it.
If no law has been broken then the courts will presumably say so.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
I failed my driving theory test first time around by 1 question. I got part way through the Highway Code, thought this is stupid and obvious, and tried to 'wing it' at the Test without bothering. One question different and I'd have gotten away with that.
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
Union loses case against Boris Johnson over Patel and bullying
And @Philip_Thompson immediately becomes a convert to judges making decisions.
(So long as they are ones he agrees with.)
No I don't.
I stand by what I said. The FDA and the courts should have had no standing here. If that's why the court reached the outcome, then the Judges have done the right thing in refusing the case. But they're not the ones making the decision, they're simply declining to overturn the decision which is entirely appropriate.
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
People act like prorogation was some constitutional outrage or that the monarch should have intervened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Until the Supreme Court invented the grounds for overturning the prorogation it was entirely legal.
The standard due process for having one was followed in full. It is worth remembering that England's prior court before the Supreme Court had ruled that the prorogation was legal. If that ruling had been upheld by the Supreme Court instead of being overturned, then on what grounds should the Queen have pre-empted it by denying the prorogation?
The Supreme Court issued its ruling, which was then implemented, but prior courts had disagreed, so its not like the issue was always obvious which way it would go.
Because this country used to be built on basic principles of right and wrong.
Exactly, on the grounds that he was trying to use it as a means to force a policy (no deal Brexit) through for which he did not have a Commons majority.
It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, but was nodded through by our have puppet Monarch.
You had no complaints when the Monarch signed the Benn Act though, which meant the PM could in effect have never been able to deliver Brexit at the time and the will of the people in 2016. The monarch in any case merely suspended parliament for a few weeks until the State Opening of Parliament in October, they did not prevent Parliament meeting indefinitely
My daughter passed driving theory test this morning - which is a blessed relief as it was her sixth attempt.
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
What an asinine question in a road theory test exam. What on earth does it have to do with whether you're safe or able on the road or not.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
Sweden is actually worse than us or say Spain or the Commonwealth realms on this. In Sweden the monarch no longer has the power to call elections, the PM has that power alone and the monarch also has no power to remove the PM, the speaker alone has the power to do so.
So if the PM and speaker of the Swedish parliament are of the same party in theory they could agree to postpone elections indefinitely.
Interesting. Thanks.
Though the Swedish constitution does say elections are held every 4 years. So they'd have to change the constitution first.
Thinking about the unlawful attempt to suspend the UK parliament in 2019, it was the supreme court, not the monarch (who just did what the PM told her to do), which saved the British constitution.
Absolutely.
In a way, it was our, much politer version of the “Attack on the Capitol”.
We crossed a rubicon that morning, led by Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Cummings.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Of the 15 countries judged to be more democratic than the UK (Economist Democracy Index 2020), 8 of them are constitutional monarchies, 7 of them are republics.
Both systems work. Don't cherry pick basket cases like USA just to suit your argument.
Most countries in the world are now republics, so percentage wise then constitutional monarchies are far more democratic than republics on those figures. Thanks for proving my point.
As long as a monarchy is a constitutional not an absolute monarchy it preserves democracy the best of any system
No, because you're lumping republics without democracy in with those that do. Nobody here is pushing for a republic and an end to democracy, any more than anyone is pushing for the restoration of absolute monarchy. If you're arguing in favour of monarchy, you don't really look to Saudi Arabia as your model.
Percentage wise there are more republics in the world headed by Presidents who are dictators effectively than there are monarchies headed by absolute monarchs
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
There's a case for clearing branches and such, and cases for not doing so.
We cut down a large tree in our garden (boo, hiss) and discovered it to be even more diseased and rotten than we thought. Had nature been allowed to take it's course much damage could have been done to nearby buildings, both public and private, and to power and phone lines.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
According to this article the Irish fight to have a storm with an Irish name each year. Who would have thought it was a matter for some Anglo-Irish-Dutch Diplomacy?
Union loses case against Boris Johnson over Patel and bullying
And @Philip_Thompson immediately becomes a convert to judges making decisions.
(So long as they are ones he agrees with.)
No I don't.
I stand by what I said. The FDA and the courts should have had no standing here. If that's why the court reached the outcome, then the Judges have done the right thing in refusing the case. But they're not the ones making the decision, they're simply declining to overturn the decision which is entirely appropriate.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
There's a case for clearing branches and such, and cases for not doing so.
We cut down a large tree in our garden (boo, hiss) and discovered it to be even more diseased and rotten than we thought. Had nature been allowed to take it's course much damage could have been done to nearby buildings, both public and private, and to power and phone lines.
Likewise. It would probably have come down in the recent storm if we hadn't.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
Sweden is actually worse than us or say Spain or the Commonwealth realms on this. In Sweden the monarch no longer has the power to call elections, the PM has that power alone and the monarch also has no power to remove the PM, the speaker alone has the power to do so.
So if the PM and speaker of the Swedish parliament are of the same party in theory they could agree to postpone elections indefinitely.
Interesting. Thanks.
Though the Swedish constitution does say elections are held every 4 years. So they'd have to change the constitution first.
Thinking about the unlawful attempt to suspend the UK parliament in 2019, it was the supreme court, not the monarch (who just did what the PM told her to do), which saved the British constitution.
Constitutions can be and have been changed by a big enough majority in the legislature, they are no guarantee of lliberty.
The US Supreme Court judges are largely political appointments made by the President and confirmed by the Senate of the day, in time our Supreme Court may also become political appointments chosen by Parliament based on ideology
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
The problem ultimately comes back to people trying to use law fare to prevent/slow down development.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
Rather than tree branches, it is rotten poles which haven't been replaced for decades due to cost which appears to be the major issue.
I've just come across a vaguely amusing tweet from Jess Phillips:
Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he's the Justice Secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.
Be fair, the poor man has only been Justice Secretary for 3 months, he is surely not expected to understand the full extent of the need for the police to investigate past crimes yet?
Interesting snippet in the Evening Standard, courtesy of the Guardian. 'The Met Police happens to be, this week, prosecuting an alleged illegal gathering on December 18 last year.
Not in Downing Street, but a house in Ilford.'
And I really must push on the Christmas preparations, since we have a Visitation in prospect by the dual nationals referred to earlier.
I've just come across a vaguely amusing tweet from Jess Phillips:
Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he's the Justice Secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.
Be fair, the poor man has only been Justice Secretary for 3 months, he is surely not expected to understand the full extent of the need for the police to investigate past crimes yet?
As Cyclefree notes, bit more than that: a "Jurisprudence degree from Oxford, a prize in International Law & a Masters degree from Cambridge and at the Foreign Office he led a team in The Hague dedicated to bringing war criminals to justice."
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Shamima Begum was the precedent, of course.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
I know more teachers than bankers that are habitual cocaine users.
A sad piece of fallout of the urban myth that all bankers are on coke - a kid a DB thought that this was how the world worked, got caught, lost his job and jumped off a roof top.......
I don't think teachers are subject to the random and mandatory drug testing that many bankers are subject to.
And with all those kids they work with, they probably know several dealers.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
There's a case for clearing branches and such, and cases for not doing so.
We cut down a large tree in our garden (boo, hiss) and discovered it to be even more diseased and rotten than we thought. Had nature been allowed to take it's course much damage could have been done to nearby buildings, both public and private, and to power and phone lines.
It was particularly farcical around Abingdon - the water system has been artificial (largely) since medieval times. "Letting it go back to nature" would mean destroying a lot of ecological systems.
I've just come across a vaguely amusing tweet from Jess Phillips:
Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he's the Justice Secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.
Be fair, the poor man has only been Justice Secretary for 3 months, he is surely not expected to understand the full extent of the need for the police to investigate past crimes yet?
Quite. I hate seeing all this blatant misogyny directed at him.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
It seems Barra is an Irish boy's name, but you'd have thought they might have ruled it out on the Xi principle
There are a mix of Irish, British and Dutch names on the list of storm names because it's a collaboration of the Irish, Dutch and British meteorological agencies.
Sure, but everyone but the Dutch should surely have said Can't have that, it's an island.
I've just come across a vaguely amusing tweet from Jess Phillips:
Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he's the Justice Secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.
Be fair, the poor man has only been Justice Secretary for 3 months, he is surely not expected to understand the full extent of the need for the police to investigate past crimes yet?
As Cyclefree notes, bit more than that: a "Jurisprudence degree from Oxford, a prize in International Law & a Masters degree from Cambridge and at the Foreign Office he led a team in The Hague dedicated to bringing war criminals to justice."
Yes, but in between he had to fill his head with very complex details of how trade works. Who would not forget minor and equally complex details about which crimes the police spend their time on?
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Tea and chocolate are my drugs of choice these days - sometimes deployed in combination.
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state, ev
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
Actually, it's another example of the disastrous effects of the Norman Conquest. If William the Bastard had been driven off, then England would have been much closer, intellectually, to Scandinavia and Holland, with their much more easy going monarchies and far better democratic structures..
First I liked this post, then I got to thinking.
If the Normans hadn't won and stayed there would no SeanT, with his much vaunted Norman ancestry. At least not on this side of the channel.
Not so bad you say but... my (real) surname also comes from a Norman warlord according to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so that's me gone too.
Then, according to Adam Rutherford, all Europeans are descendents of William the Conqueror. So without his victory at Hastings, not only would England be much more like Scandanavia... but we'd all be French. Or something.
Me gone too. Part of my surname is Norman from the 11th century. My ancestors were probably ordering @SeanT's ancestors. Or arguing with them anyway.
Also not mentioned yet is this idea that the government can already revoke your citizenship without notice, under Patel’s new nationality and borders bill.
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
The subject of one of my next headers. Affects all dual nationals, including those born here.
As a grandfather to three dual nationals I look forward to reading it.
I am looking forward to @Cyclefree's header on this subject. The fate of dual nationals has been very troubling. This, together with the denial of citizenship rights to the Windrush generation, has struck me as evidence of the worst kind of institutional racism against certain minorites, for which I personally (as an British person) feel very deeply ashamed.
If it's how it's currently written it's not just those with Dual Nationality - it's those with even the vaguest chance of a second passport.
Shamima Begum was the precedent, of course.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
The problem ultimately comes back to people trying to use law fare to prevent/slow down development.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
Railway lines have always been Acts of Parliament (it's quicker).
The monarch would dissolve parliament after 5 years and order a general election to be held if the government of the day refused to do so.
That is one of the benefits of having a constitutional monarch
I thought this was so, but the position of the Monarch is so weak that it is not the case. HMQ will act on the advice of her Ministers. No more and no less. She may as well be a hand puppet.
We saw this with the prorogation in 2019. There is no circumstance in which the Monarch would set themselves against the incumbent Executive. They will do as they are told. Anything else is too risky.
Rubbish. The monarch suspended Parliament for a few weeks in 2019 until the courts ruled on the constitutional nature of it because diehard Remainers like you refused to respect the EU referendum result. She also signed the Benn Act, an Act passed by diehard Remariners like you to try and block Brexit.
There is a difference between those incidents and the monarch allowing their government to never call a general election and stay in power forever. In those circumstances the monarch would indeed dissolve parliament and force a general election after 5 years and as the armed forces ultimately are headed by the monarch not the PM there is nothing the government could do about it
Sigh. Do not speak falsehoods about me. I accepted the referendum result.
The prorogation was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Monarch meekly did as she was told by her Ministers in bringing it about. This is very strong evidence that she is too weak to play any role in safeguarding our democracy.
Republicans have had this all wrong. They still concentrate their criticism of the monarchy on them having too much power, but the truth of the matter is that their lack of democratic legitimacy means they are unable to play the crucial role of an independent bulwark against authoritarianism. They're too weak, not too strong, and it's why we need an elected head of state.
Edit: fixing broken quotes. And spelling. I'll go back to bed now.
Because Russia, Brazil, the US etc work so well with elected heads of state. In the US in January Trump almost stayed in power via coup and constitutions like the US can in theory be changed if the president's party wins Congress and state legislatures by a big enough margin to ensure the President stays in power indefinitely without facing re election
I was not proposing a strong Executive President. I had more in mind a President who was a figurehead, as in Ireland.
In which case the Irish President has the same powers as the UK monarch to dissolve Parliament but without the ceremony and name recognition we enjoy in our head of state
Yes. The difference is that President Higgins has democratic legitimacy, so it would be easier for him to use his powers.
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
The more I think about it, the government are heading in to disaster regarding Judicial Review. I've been thinking about this specifically in terms of planning law.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
Technically they could already do that via a Statutory Instrument or a short Act of Parliament which is how such things should be dealt with.
Technically yes - but either route could still currently be challenged in the courts, if parliament has failed to take account of another statutory duty, for instance. It is unlikely to be something that would be pursued in the normal course of business due to the amount of work involved. Much easier to just strike down other decisions that you don't like.
Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
It's a remarkable trick to make drugs illegal and then blame the users for buying them from criminals.
People act like prorogation was some constitutional outrage or that the monarch should have intervened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Until the Supreme Court invented the grounds for overturning the prorogation it was entirely legal.
The standard due process for having one was followed in full. It is worth remembering that England's prior court before the Supreme Court had ruled that the prorogation was legal. If that ruling had been upheld by the Supreme Court instead of being overturned, then on what grounds should the Queen have pre-empted it by denying the prorogation?
The Supreme Court issued its ruling, which was then implemented, but prior courts had disagreed, so its not like the issue was always obvious which way it would go.
Because this country used to be built on basic principles of right and wrong.
Exactly, on the grounds that he was trying to use it as a means to force a policy (no deal Brexit) through for which he did not have a Commons majority.
It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, but was nodded through by our have puppet Monarch.
You had no complaints when the Monarch signed the Benn Act though, which meant the PM could in effect have never been able to deliver Brexit at the time and the will of the people in 2016. The monarch in any case merely suspended parliament for a few weeks until the State Opening of Parliament in October, they did not prevent Parliament meeting indefinitely
The Benn Act did not prevent Brexit. It prevented Brexit without a deal. Regardless it's entirely constitutionally proper (though politically unwise) for the Commons to legislate contrary to a referendum if MPs decide to do so. The voters have the remedy of electing different MPs - which is what they did at GE2019.
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
That's a lazy cliche. Its use is far more widespread than that, and in fact while I have come across it many times in my life, during over a decade working in financial services I've never seen it being used by anyone I've worked with. Whereas I have for instance seen a load of salt of the earth white working class blokes (OK, Millwall fans) doing it in a pub toilet on New Cross Road. I don't necessarily approve of it (it makes people a bit obnoxious) but it's not particularly addictive and usually has a smaller effect on users than alcohol does so I don't really get the big hoo-ha about it.
It tends not to be taken by the teetotal and is rather synergistic with alcohol.
The classic upper/downer combination I suppose. I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
Or eat chocolate or have nutmeg in their rice pudding.
Tea and chocolate are my drugs of choice these days - sometimes deployed in combination.
If you are dunking chocolate digestives, you'll have the police breaking your door down.
Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
It's a remarkable trick to make drugs illegal and then blame the users for buying them from criminals.
Just heard a short clip of BJ trying to do serious politician over new drugs policy. While his comic turns are of course apex arsehole, BJ being prime ministerial really turns the stomach. At least unserious Boris is the authentic Boris.
He was also wearing what seemed to be a police uniform. Isn't impersonating a police officer a criminal offence?
Just heard a short clip of BJ trying to do serious politician over new drugs policy. While his comic turns are of course apex arsehole, BJ being prime ministerial really turns the stomach. At least unserious Boris is the authentic Boris.
He was also wearing what seemed to be a police uniform. Isn't impersonating a police officer a criminal offence?
Haha. The hi-viz jackets have have had their day then, and it's time to look through some more hangers in the fancy-dress and make up wardrobe.
Good morning. Still 3 000+ homes without power up here. And Storm Barra due tomorrow. Scotland all back on I believe.
The compare and contrast between England and Scotland has been stark. In Scotland the network provider has been providing very regular updates to people, has paid for hot food every day and provided feeding stations in the centre of affected towns / villages. In England I know several people who have had nothing and were told by the network operator to stop asking them for the updates they weren't getting.
Yep. Had a friend off 5 days. In a town of more than 13k population. No mobile signal. No information whatsoever. Luckily he had an open fire. It's not been much above freezing and is now nine days in. Scandalous really.
It would be much more efficient if it were in private hands........ Oh, wait.
Clearly there will be an inquiry into this. I heard somewhere last week that cutting back of trees/branches has been scaled back and it seems this might be a contributing factor? Echoes of the lack of dredging in the Somerset levels being implicated in flooding, and possible 'green' reasons for not doing so.
Greenery has been used on a number of occasions to not do maintenance.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
Rather than tree branches, it is rotten poles which haven't been replaced for decades due to cost which appears to be the major issue.
I'm surprised people are actually without power. Can't they be issued with a petrol generator? Would be noisy, but would allow the central heating to be run, and cooking
The problem with cocaine use is it is now endemic. Sure. You could lock all users up. But the country would be covered in jails and sectors of the economy would grind to a halt.
"sectors of the economy"
Financial services, law and the media?
Do you really believe it is only the middle classes? You are believing the government spin. They are trying to tee this up as ordinary folk vs the Elite. And you are lapping it up.
Why do I feel that this latest wheeze is going to go down extremely well with Sandy and the other PB authoritarians? Anyone who moralises about illegal drugs while consuming alcohol is, frankly, behaving like an idiot. Most of the supply chain issues with illegal drugs are a direct consequence of their prohibition.
Whether they are yuppies or football hooligans should make no difference. Cocaine users should face stiff penalties. Their demand is responsible for the supply chain, and all that involves. The blood is on their hands.
And that should include those in public office or are 'celebrities' who have confessed to their crimes.
About 15 million of us have taken drugs at some point. Lock us all up if you like but your taxes will be lively!
Or just randomly select those of us on the fringes of society or those in public office to set an example, but that is not really fair is it?
Correction: Almost all 70 million of us have taken drugs at some point.
Comments
It reminds me that I am already a second-class citizen here in what I foolishly assumed was my home.
I assume native-born Brits don’t even notice all this stuff, but all my immigrant friends do.
As far as I am concerned, Boris is a menace to our liberties and our democratic conventions.
And he is certainly presiding over the most openly corrupt government of modern times.
But have always been with you in spirit. Remember I'm Irish: we kicked the English out some time ago ...... 😁
It is literally for the PM to use his judgement in this matter, the courts should not have the right to second-guess the PMs judgement. If the Judges want to make these decisions then they should run for Parliament.
But I thought everyone in England could, theoretically, trace their lineage as far as Edward I.
Personally on my fathers side I appear to go back to Welsh peasantry. On my mother's side, I'm not so sure. Her maiden name appears to have appeared in Leicestershire about 1500, although no-one seems quite sure from where.
As for pubs, some pubs round here in Scotland's central belt were Goths on the Swedish model, and a few still are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothenburg_Public_House_System
It is a nightmare test and one wonders whether it has been set deliberately hard for financial reasons. It is so damaging to the self-esteem of so many youngsters.
And - my word - some of the questions they ask! What percentage of all emissions does road transport account for? Anyone know?
Matters that are for the rule of law should be determined in court in the first place, not by the PM. If the PM is defined as the arbiter of the Code as he is then its for the public and Parliament to determine who they want to be PM.
It disturbs me greatly.
I don't know. One thing you certainly don't do is double down on a failing policy - further restrictions on liberties, for a few cheap culture war headlines in the press about students, and to redirect attention away from drugs in your own toilets.
£340,000 was paid out to the person that accused Patel of bullying.
It is right we know more about it, as taxpayers, we paid for it.
Judicial Review is the backstop of the planning system - if a decision is wrong due to maladministration or corruption then it can go to the courts to be overturned. In the very recent case of the Westferry Print works, it turned out that the Secretary of State granted permission for the development overturning the Inspectors recommendation following some questionable encounters with the developer concerned, who was also a conservative party donor. This only really came to light because of the existence of Judicial Review.
They now seem to be trying to change the law to circumvent this process and make it meaningless; so it can nullify court decisions at will. In terms of planning decisions, that literally means that they just get the final say on everything without regard to any legal process. If you take that, plus their past suspicious dealings with developers, the preponderance of property developers amongst its donors, plus the current sleaze scandal; you can see that it is absolutely toxic.
The slightly sad thing is that the Patterson U turn suggests that they don't seem to even understand what they are doing. They just seem to be reckless and foolish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Everyone_Who_Ever_Lived
Union loses case against Boris Johnson over Patel and bullying
It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, but was nodded through by our have puppet Monarch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Management_Scheme
I have just received my third prick!
If no law has been broken then the courts will presumably say so.
Thinking about the unlawful attempt to suspend the UK parliament in 2019, it was the supreme court, not the monarch (who just did what the PM told her to do), which saved the British constitution.
Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he's the Justice Secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.
(So long as they are ones he agrees with.)
But there were no questions on emissions, they were all driving related. That seems like a ludicrous question to ask.
Certainly, after the big flood during the coalition government, the minor streams and rivers around Abingdon got sorted out in a matter of weeks, after decades of people being threatened with legal action for attempting to clear them...
I stand by what I said. The FDA and the courts should have had no standing here. If that's why the court reached the outcome, then the Judges have done the right thing in refusing the case. But they're not the ones making the decision, they're simply declining to overturn the decision which is entirely appropriate.
In a way, it was our, much politer version of the “Attack on the Capitol”.
We crossed a rubicon that morning, led by Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Cummings.
We cut down a large tree in our garden (boo, hiss) and discovered it to be even more diseased and rotten than we thought. Had nature been allowed to take it's course much damage could have been done to nearby buildings, both public and private, and to power and phone lines.
Who would have thought it was a matter for some Anglo-Irish-Dutch Diplomacy?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/hopefully-not-coming-our-way-storms-barra-méabh-pól-and-seán-1.4661435
I should resist temptation really......
It would probably have come down in the recent storm if we hadn't.
The US Supreme Court judges are largely political appointments made by the President and confirmed by the Senate of the day, in time our Supreme Court may also become political appointments chosen by Parliament based on ideology
I would propose that only teetotal non smokers who don't drink cafeinated drinks should opine on illegal drug use. Everyone else who does so is just a hypocrite.
We could be on for a two day test.
So we are now at the stage where building a train line takes 30 years.
Which means the reaction to it will be sweeping enough to smash things up, in the other direction.
With house building - I've been saying for years. Better getting the building started now, while you control it. Otherwise the constituency of people who want houses will get big enough, that the developers will get given carte blanche....
'The Met Police happens to be, this week, prosecuting an alleged illegal gathering on December 18 last year.
Not in Downing Street, but a house in Ilford.'
And I really must push on the Christmas preparations, since we have a Visitation in prospect by the dual nationals referred to earlier.
Bye for now.
A wicked person, who ought to have been repatriated to this country for trial.
Instead, the government are ripping up basic liberties to please - who, precisely?
The Queen has her powers in name only. She will not use them for fear of the consequences. She is a hand puppet head of state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59545490
I do hope he hasn't ever said anything racist..