The whisky arrived at 0930 this morning, Doc, thank you.
What made you pick a German supplier? The idea that whisky from Islay is exported to Germany before being packaged up nicely and then delivered to England is not an immediately obvious business proposition.
It was not a deliberate provocation to a kipper, Just via Amazon marketplace!
When the Tories were in opposition they said they would reduce the number of MPs to 585. When they were in coalition they said they would reduce the number to 600. Now they're in single-party government they say they're going to keep the number at 650.
Has this now been confirmed? I thought 600 was still on the cards.
No. 600 is still on the cards. The Conservative manifesto says:
"In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value. We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018."
Now the key phrase here is "make them apply automatically".
As the law stands TODAY a new Boundary review will start in early 2016 based on 2015 electoral registers which will report in Autumn 2018. That is the law NOW - no action is required by Parliament - that will happen under the current law.
However the key phrase in the manifesto is "make them apply automatically". That is NOT the law as of today. Under the current law the Boundary Commission reports would have to be approved by Parliament (both Commons in Lords) in 2018 before being laid before the Queen.
So if the manifesto is to be complied with it appears there will need to be a brief new law introduced to remove the need for Parliamentary votes in 2018. This is exactly what the Conservatives attempted to do in 2012. At the same time as Lab / LD amended the Electoral Registration Bill to cancel the last Boundary review, the Conservatives moved an amendment (which was obviously defeated) which provided for the Prime Minister to directly lay the Boundary Commission reports before the Queen without any need for a Parliamentary vote.
So we await the Queens Speech - is this what Cameron will now attempt to do again?
When the Tories were in opposition they said they would reduce the number of MPs to 585. When they were in coalition they said they would reduce the number to 600. Now they're in single-party government they say they're going to keep the number at 650.
Has this now been confirmed? I thought 600 was still on the cards.
No. 600 is still on the cards. The Conservative manifesto says:
"In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value. We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018."
Now the key phrase here is "make them apply automatically".
As the law stands TODAY a new Boundary review will start in early 2016 based on 2015 electoral registers which will report in Autumn 2018. That is the law NOW - no action is required by Parliament - that will happen under the current law.
However the key phrase in the manifesto is "make them apply automatically". That is NOT the law as of today. Under the current law the Boundary Commission reports would have to be approved by Parliament (both Commons in Lords) in 2018 before being laid before the Queen.
So if the manifesto is to be complied with it appears there will need to be a brief new law introduced to remove the need for Parliamentary votes in 2018. This is exactly what the Conservatives attempted to do in 2012. At the same time as Lab / LD amended the Electoral Registration Bill to cancel the last Boundary review, the Conservatives moved an amendment (which was obviously defeated) which provided for the Prime Minister to directly lay the Boundary Commission reports before the Queen without any need for a Parliamentary vote.
So we await the Queens Speech - is this what Cameron will now attempt to do again?
Hopefully. Bloody scandalous to vote down a boundary review.
@WikiGuido: Understand Suzanne Evans will make a statement later on speculation she is out in next stage of UKIP counter-putsch: http://t.co/kVEZNPUDw2
The whisky arrived at 0930 this morning, Doc, thank you.
What made you pick a German supplier? The idea that whisky from Islay is exported to Germany before being packaged up nicely and then delivered to England is not an immediately obvious business proposition.
It was not a deliberate provocation to a kipper, Just via Amazon marketplace!
It never occurred to me that you might be trying to wind me up, I was just curious. As a transaction it does show the interconnected nature of modern business: a product manufactured in Scotland is exported to Germany, advertised on an American owned web site before being bought and imported into England (the German state collects 19% of the value in VAT). How the Huns keep their prices competitive and make a profit on the deal I don't know.
The boundary review should be taken away from MPs and happen automatically.
650 > 600 isn't going to happen - not sure any party supports it.
They would do better to reduce the number of Lords (whether elected or not). The Lords is the world's only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House.
The boundary review should be taken away from MPs and happen automatically.
650 > 600 isn't going to happen - not sure any party supports it.
They would do better to reduce the number of Lords (whether elected or not). The Lords is the world's only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House.
A cold winter should see a few more off - either that or an expansion of Operation Yewtree...
Incidentally, if District Judge Brownlie's assessment of the law is correct, it is now unlawful throughout the United Kingdom for a Muslim printer to refuse to print cartoons of his Prophet, for an atheist baker to refuse to accept to bake a cake with the slogan all "Infidels will burn in Hell" or for a church newspaper which accepts advertising to refuse to print pro-abortion advertisements. That is an intolerable threat to freedom of expression.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
The boundary review should be taken away from MPs and happen automatically.
650 > 600 isn't going to happen - not sure any party supports it.
They would do better to reduce the number of Lords (whether elected or not). The Lords is the world's only Upper House bigger than its respective Lower House.
I don't see a problem with it being large (just to scare you it was ~1,500 before the 1999 Act!): given the Lords deals with legislation covering a wide range of issues, it makes sense to have experts from various fields to contribute. If we limited it to 100, the number of experts in any given area is diminished significantly. Of course ,you could say that none of them are experts at anything....!
The whisky arrived at 0930 this morning, Doc, thank you.
What made you pick a German supplier? The idea that whisky from Islay is exported to Germany before being packaged up nicely and then delivered to England is not an immediately obvious business proposition.
It was not a deliberate provocation to a kipper, Just via Amazon marketplace!
It never occurred to me that you might be trying to wind me up, I was just curious. As a transaction it does show the interconnected nature of modern business: a product manufactured in Scotland is exported to Germany, advertised on an American owned web site before being bought and imported into England (the German state collects 19% of the value in VAT). How the Huns keep their prices competitive and make a profit on the deal I don't know.
It does also mean that we need a shovel full of salt when interpreting trade data. Does that bottle of whisky count as an EU export, an EU import, both or neither?
Similarly an Airbus sold to Singapore will have wings made in Bristol, but will show as a British export to France and a French export to Singapore. I believe that a lot of our EU trade is mislabelled this way.
Enjoy the Islay peat while considering such matters!
The boundary review should be taken away from MPs and happen automatically.
650 > 600 isn't going to happen - not sure any party supports it.
See post below. 600 is already the law now.
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
@WikiGuido: Understand Suzanne Evans will make a statement later on speculation she is out in next stage of UKIP counter-putsch: http://t.co/kVEZNPUDw2
If they have got rid of her they are total idiots. She was their best asset, came across great on TV and a genuine star who had cross-party appeal.
@WikiGuido: Understand Suzanne Evans will make a statement later on speculation she is out in next stage of UKIP counter-putsch: http://t.co/kVEZNPUDw2
If they have got rid of her they are total idiots. She was their best asset, came across great on TV and a genuine star who had cross-party appeal.
She lacks one critical attribute though: unthinking loyalty to Nigel Farage.
@WikiGuido: Understand Suzanne Evans will make a statement later on speculation she is out in next stage of UKIP counter-putsch: http://t.co/kVEZNPUDw2
If they have got rid of her they are total idiots. She was their best asset, came across great on TV and a genuine star who had cross-party appeal.
She lacks one critical attribute though: unthinking loyalty to Nigel Farage.
Weren't UKIP exposed for spying on their opponents the other day too? Really doesn't sound like a very pleasant organisation.
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
We'll know when we see the Queens Speech.
If they have a Bill to remove the requirement for a vote in the Commons on new boundaries, is it possible that there will be an amendment to put the numbers back to 650? If so, who would propose such an amendment?
I could see Labour proposing an amendment to determine boundaries on the basis of population instead of electorate, but would expect that to be defeated. Not so sure about changing the law back from 600 to 650.
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
We'll know when we see the Queens Speech.
If they have a Bill to remove the requirement for a vote in the Commons on new boundaries, is it possible that there will be an amendment to put the numbers back to 650? If so, who would propose such an amendment?
I could see Labour proposing an amendment to determine boundaries on the basis of population instead of electorate, but would expect that to be defeated. Not so sure about changing the law back from 600 to 650.
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
We'll know when we see the Queens Speech.
If they have a Bill to remove the requirement for a vote in the Commons on new boundaries, is it possible that there will be an amendment to put the numbers back to 650? If so, who would propose such an amendment?
I could see Labour proposing an amendment to determine boundaries on the basis of population instead of electorate, but would expect that to be defeated. Not so sure about changing the law back from 600 to 650.
Yes, I'm sure such an amendment will be proposed.
I also expect literally hundreds and hundreds of other amendments in the Lords - it will be a repeat of 2010 with the Committee stage in the Lords going on for days and days and days.
Whether the amendment to go back to 650 will be passed in the Commons - who knows - it needs 9 Con backbenchers to vote for it.
Remember 4 Con backbenchers voted with Lab / LD to cancel the last Boundary review - which is why Cameron cannot trust his backbenchers on this.
Which, in turn, is why the Bill will be needed because he can't trust them not to rebel and vote the whole thing down in 2018 (plus issue of Lords in 2018).
Weren't UKIP exposed for spying on their opponents the other day too? Really doesn't sound like a very pleasant organisation.
Worse than that, their mole was trying to incite Farage's opponents to cause criminal damage, etc, in order that they could be discredited. As bad as.. the police, sadly.
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
We'll know when we see the Queens Speech.
If they have a Bill to remove the requirement for a vote in the Commons on new boundaries, is it possible that there will be an amendment to put the numbers back to 650? If so, who would propose such an amendment?
I could see Labour proposing an amendment to determine boundaries on the basis of population instead of electorate, but would expect that to be defeated. Not so sure about changing the law back from 600 to 650.
Yes, I'm sure such an amendment will be proposed.
I also expect literally hundreds and hundreds of other amendments in the Lords - it will be a repeat of 2010 with the Committee stage in the Lords going on for days and days and days.
Whether the amendment to go back to 650 will be passed in the Commons - who knows - it needs 9 Con backbenchers to vote for it.
Remember 4 Con backbenchers voted with Lab / LD to cancel the last Boundary review - which is why Cameron cannot trust his backbenchers on this.
Which, in turn, is why the Bill will be needed because he can't trust them not to rebel and vote the whole thing down in 2018 (plus issue of Lords in 2018).
Well they aren't all disloyal. Were those four in seats under threat of being wiped off the map?
One key factor in the boundary review (It makes little odds long term to Con or Lab success probabilities I reckon) is that the Lib Dems won't be a major factor this time. They clearly voted against 600 in order to not become a near extinct party in single figures with their MPs.
One key factor in the boundary review (It makes little odds long term to Con or Lab success probabilities I reckon) is that the Lib Dems won't be a major factor this time. They clearly voted against 600 in order to not become a near extinct party in single figures with their MPs.
That worked out well
Let's not get complacent though, still more to be done.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
This is an extremely valuable post, cuts through the histrionics we've seen on this issue. Thanks.
I also expect literally hundreds and hundreds of other amendments in the Lords - it will be a repeat of 2010 with the Committee stage in the Lords going on for days and days and days.
Whether the amendment to go back to 650 will be passed in the Commons - who knows - it needs 9 Con backbenchers to vote for it.
Remember 4 Con backbenchers voted with Lab / LD to cancel the last Boundary review - which is why Cameron cannot trust his backbenchers on this.
Which, in turn, is why the Bill will be needed because he can't trust them not to rebel and vote the whole thing down in 2018 (plus issue of Lords in 2018).
It is also important to note that the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 do not apply to subordinate legislation, so as the law currently stands, the House of Lords has an indefeasible veto over the boundary changes in 2018. The difficulty the government will have if it tries to remove the requirement for Parliamentary approval of the draft Order in Council is that it will make the ouster clause in section 4(7) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 much less likely to be effective to prevent judicial review. This could open the door to endless challenges to the Order in Council on the ground of procedural impropriety.
Well they aren't all disloyal. Were those four in seats under threat of being wiped off the map?
Can't be bothered to check but from memory one was David Davis whose seat wasn't threatened.
The point is Cameron is on an absolute knife-edge over this - Con now has all 6 Cornish MPs who will be under massive pressure due to the need for a seat crossing the Devon / Cornwall border (that applies whether it's 600 or 650 - due to reduction in variance now allowed) plus likely Welsh rebellion plus other trouble makers - it's very, very easy to see 9 MPs rebelling.
I think there remains a very real risk that he doesn't get a Boundary review through this Parliament - whatever approach he follows he is in grave risk of defeat.
But best bet is to go for a Bill now - and remove the need for any votes in 2018.
Manchester Evening News have a report on who the Greater Manchester MPs will back
Ann Coffey says she will nominate Kendall but she's unsure who to vote for.
Michael Meacher, Yasmine Qureshi, Yvonne Fovargue, Lisa Nandy, David Crausby and Barbara Keeley are backing Burnham along previously announced Abrahams and Gwynne. Lucy Powell says she will "almost certainly’ be backing Mr Burnham.
Mike Kane backs Creagh. Kate Green supports Cooper.
Well they aren't all disloyal. Were those four in seats under threat of being wiped off the map?
Can't be bothered to check but from memory one was David Davis whose seat wasn't threatened.
The point is Cameron is on an absolute knife-edge over this - Con now has all 6 Cornish MPs who will be under massive pressure due to the need for a seat crossing the Devon / Cornwall border (that applies whether it's 600 or 650 - due to reduction in variance now allowed) plus likely Welsh rebellion plus other trouble makers - it's very, very easy to see 9 MPs rebelling.
I think there remains a very real risk that he doesn't get a Boundary review through this Parliament - whatever approach he follows he is in grave risk of defeat.
But best bet is to go for a Bill now - and remove the need for any votes in 2018.
Perhaps he should be looking forward to 2020 to see who is retiring. Parachuting isn't great, but provides an option. I'd agree the vote should happen sooner or later, while the backbenchers are onside (the PB Tory 1000 year reich phase).
My final comment for today. Alex Kane has reported that there is talk of the executive collapsing and that this will suit SF and the DUP. The SDLP is having its own leadership crisis at the moment and the UUP might not have the time to fully capitalise on the forward momentum gained on May 7. I'm less convinced. Sinn Fein are concentrating on the Irish elections and the fact that the UUP is no longer a force in terminal decline is fresh in voters' minds. I suspect the DUP is pretty confident that an early election won't harm them but SF probably want to concentrate efforts in Dublin. While the SDLP will fear the early election, they will circle the wagons at what would be a fairly naked attempt to take advantage of their internal issues.
It is also important to note that the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911 do not apply to subordinate legislation, so as the law currently stands, the House of Lords has an indefeasible veto over the boundary changes in 2018. The difficulty the government will have if it tries to remove the requirement for Parliamentary approval of the draft Order in Council is that it will make the ouster clause in section 4(7) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 much less likely to be effective to prevent judicial review. This could open the door to endless challenges to the Order in Council on the ground of procedural impropriety.
I know - which is why this is very, very, very awkward for Cameron.
However I still think the best bet is to go for a new Bill removing the need for any 2018 votes.
You probably know more than me on this but I suspect courts will not be sympathetic to what look like frivolous attempts to prevent an entire Boundary Review being implemented.
One other thing he might try is to bring the deadline for the reports forward from 1 October 2018 to say 1 June 2018 - that should still be feasible for the Commissions and it would just give that bit more of a buffer in case there are legal challenges.
Mr. Antifrank, we just had a pretty severe hailstorm here.
But I'm confused by your statement. We already know gay frisky time causes flooding, so surely the presence, rather than the absence, of gay cakes [and other culinary objects] would cause hail?
I prefer my gay cakes fresh, not frozen, thank you very much
Incidentally, if District Judge Brownlie's assessment of the law is correct, it is now unlawful throughout the United Kingdom for a Muslim printer to refuse to print cartoons of his Prophet, for an atheist baker to refuse to accept to bake a cake with the slogan all "Infidels will burn in Hell" or for a church newspaper which accepts advertising to refuse to print pro-abortion advertisements. That is an intolerable threat to freedom of expression.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
I think where you draw the line is to allow people not to give a platform for the publication of opinions that they disagree with.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
As often is the case, where do you draw the line, allow landlords to say no blacks or Irish? Or just no gays?
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
Presuming his intention was to keep a high profile so he could get an even better shadow cabinet post, it would be most embarrassing indeed to not get into double figures at least, I'd have thought.
Seeing some of the posts on here today, I'm minded to think, not for the first time, that I should really get all my legal advice from PB. Now if only I needed legal advice.
@Lucian_Fletcher What would you estimate the probability of a by-election in Belfast South at ?
*_*
Low. There would likely end up being an agreed unionist candidate in such circumstances. SDLP in no state to be able throw away a seat. I expect there will be some agreement short of a resignation from the Commons. Though I don't see how they avoid some bloodletting of some sort. It looks messy from the outside. The candidate in F&ST was astoundingly poor. You would have almost have suspected he was purposely awful to push nationalists to Michelle Gildernew!
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
The judgment is poorly argued. But James v Eastleigh BC is of limited relevance where, as here, the court, reasonably, concluded that the bakery assumed that the plaintiff was gay on the basis of the cake that he ordered. Anyone of any orientation would therefore presumably be assumed to be gay by the bakery, so that would take us no further forward, since they would all receive the same treatment (which is arguably related to the presumed sexuality).
A central question for me, which was unanswered, is whether the bakery would have refused to make any cake with a message where its owners in all conscience felt that it went against their beliefs or just this one. If the bakers would have made other cakes with messages of which they disapproved ("free IRA prisoners", perhaps), then that would seem to me to be discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
As for the news that Farage is getting rid of his critics inside UKIP, the fact is simple, as long as Farage has a majority of members on his side no one can move him out but he can move everyone else out.
There are 3 ways which Farage will no longer be UKIP leader: 1. Death or physical incapacitation. 2. Willing retirement. 3. A UKIP senior figure that eclipses Farage within the membership.
This is a question of law, and the line was drawn by the maker of the regulations. Whether a different balance could have been struck is of course a matter of political debate over which reasonable people may disagree. The regulations draw a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. The former is unlawful per se; the latter is unlawful only where it cannot be objectively justified. What the District Judge decided was that refusing to bake a cake with a political message in support of gay marriage was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the face of it, that seems very odd, given that a person may support or oppose gay marriage whether they are or homosexual, heterosexual or asexual.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were er of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
The judgment is poorly argued. But James v Eastleigh BC is of limited relevance where, as here, the court, reasonably, concluded that the bakery assumed that the plaintiff was gay on the basis of the cake that he ordered. Anyone of any orientation would therefore presumably be assumed to be gay by the bakery, so that would take us no further forward, since they would all receive the same treatment.
A central question for me, which was unanswered, is whether the bakery would have refused to make any cake with a message where its owners in all conscience felt that it went against their beliefs or just this one. If the bakers would have made other cakes with messages of which they disapproved ("free IRA prisoners", perhaps), then that would seem to me to be discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
I can't answer for Ashers, but given that they're evangelical Protestants, i'd be surprised if they'd take such an order (although, after this ruling, I don't think they'd have any choice).
I know - which is why this is very, very, very awkward for Cameron.
However I still think the best bet is to go for a new Bill removing the need for any 2018 votes.
You probably know more than me on this but I suspect courts will not be sympathetic to what look like frivolous attempts to prevent an entire Boundary Review being implemented.
The authorities dealing with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 are confused and probably would not be decided in the same fashion today. Suffice to say they all considered that Parliament's ability to remedy flaws in the Commission's recommendations reduced the "rules" governing the redistribution of seats to guidelines, and made successful judicial review difficult if not impossible. If the ability to remedy defects vested solely in the executive, this line of authority seemingly would not apply...
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
It is a classic and worrying example of the courts accepting the views of the practitioners of identity politics at face value. Whether appellate courts have the courage to reverse this madness will be interesting to see.
The SNP lost the election for the SNP - they may have swept Scotland but were so toxic and repellent to the rUk that they ensured their coalition buddies Labour were holed beneath the water line.
If they want to have influence in Westminster they may need not to be so narrow minded regarding their coalition partners.
It may also be wise of SNP MPs to not deliberately antagonise their only possible coalition partner at Westminster by fighting over trivialities.
Getting the whole of the Westminster establishment against them is not outwith the SNP's interests... Labour OTOH need the SNP more than the SNP need Labour.
I think the vast majority of the SNP MPs will become extremely hard working constituency MPs, given that each of them has over 1,000 party members to deploy they will be even more effective. The SNP MPs are not interested in being liked at Westminster, maintaining a high profile is all they need to do to keep their supporters on side. The MSM demonizing of the SNP is only going to drive the surge, surprised this hasn't sunk in yet.
When Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, he was great friends with Neil Marten. Neil was taking a group of constituents around the Palace of Westminster when Hailsham entered the Great Hall, in full regalia, with various mace- and rod-wielding flunkies in pantaloons.
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
The judgment is poorly argued. But James v Eastleigh BC is of limited relevance where, as here, the court, reasonably, concluded that the bakery assumed that the plaintiff was gay on the basis of the cake that he ordered. Anyone of any orientation would therefore presumably be assumed to be gay by the bakery, so that would take us no further forward, since they would all receive the same treatment (which is arguably related to the presumed sexuality).
A central question for me, which was unanswered, is whether the bakery would have refused to make any cake with a message where its owners in all conscience felt that it went against their beliefs or just this one. If the bakers would have made other cakes with messages of which they disapproved ("free IRA prisoners", perhaps), then that would seem to me to be discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
James v Eastleigh Borough Council is authority for the proposition that the motive of the defendant is irrelevant in assessing whether the claimant was treated differently "on the ground of" the protected characteristic. Contrast the speeches of the majority with the dissents of Lord Griffiths and Lord Lowry, who argued that the question of motive was inseparable from the words "on the ground of". What the claimant must show is that he would have been treated differently but for the protected characteristic. That is an objective question of causation. Unless the bizarre doctrine in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 (HL) is extended, the claimant must show that the bakery would have baked the cake with a message in support of gay marriage had a heterosexual or asexual person ordered it. Given the judge rejected this test at [41] as "it oversimplifies the enquiry", it seems clear she misdirected herself in law.
The authorities dealing with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 are confused and probably would not be decided in the same fashion today. Suffice to say they all considered that Parliament's ability to remedy flaws in the Commission's recommendations reduced the "rules" governing the redistribution of seats to guidelines, and made successful judicial review difficult if not impossible. If the ability to remedy defects vested solely in the executive, this line of authority seemingly would not apply
I do vaguely remember a legal challenge against a Boundary review - not sure but think it may have involved Ed Balls / Yvette Cooper.
From memory the Courts were very dismissive - I think the point was made that a disagreement over one seat should not be allowed to derail the review for the whole country.
It's also quite hard to argue that the Boundary Commission has done anything wrong - as long as they hold all the consultations properly and abide by all rules then it's hard to challenge solely on the basis that you don't like their final decision.
I fully respect what you say on this but I do think if Cameron can get the Order in Council done by mid 2018 it's pretty unlikely that the courts would prevent the new seats being used in 2020.
Calum In Canada the Bloc Quebecois won most seats in Quebec at every Canadian general election from 1993 to 2011. I would not be surprised if Scotland follows suit, especially because the SNP can easily win most seats on a minority vote. I think the SNP are more likely to lose their majority at Holyrood because of the PR element and more tactical voting, indeed Quebec general elections switched every 2 or 3 elections between the Liberals and the Nationalists
When Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, he was great friends with Neil Marten. Neil was taking a group of constituents around the Palace of Westminster when Hailsham entered the Great Hall, in full regalia, with various mace- and rod-wielding flunkies in pantaloons.
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
When Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, he was great friends with Neil Marten. Neil was taking a group of constituents around the Palace of Westminster when Hailsham entered the Great Hall, in full regalia, with various mace- and rod-wielding flunkies in pantaloons.
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
With predictable results...
I knew Lord Hailsham slightly in his latter years. He still cycled everywhere in his late 80's bicycle clips and all, a man of immense faith, crushed(IMHO) by the death of his second wife. I moved away, I think he married again,
He was a wonderful man and brilliant to listen to. There have not been many politicians of his calibre
When Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, he was great friends with Neil Marten. Neil was taking a group of constituents around the Palace of Westminster when Hailsham entered the Great Hall, in full regalia, with various mace- and rod-wielding flunkies in pantaloons.
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
With predictable results...
If only his name was "Neil Peasant"
Indeed. Hailsham and Neil were drinking buddies (along with Piggy Boyd-Carpenter). Piggy's daughter actually ended up marrying Hailsham's son.
When Lord Hailsham was Lord Chancellor, he was great friends with Neil Marten. Neil was taking a group of constituents around the Palace of Westminster when Hailsham entered the Great Hall, in full regalia, with various mace- and rod-wielding flunkies in pantaloons.
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
With predictable results...
I knew Lord Hailsham slightly in his latter years. He still cycled everywhere in his late 80's bicycle clips and all, a man of immense faith, crushed(IMHO) by the death of his second wife. I moved away, I think he married again,
He was a wonderful man and brilliant to listen to. There have not been many politicians of his calibre
I know. He was a good man - he used to read me Asterix in Latin when I was a kid
I know - which is why this is very, very, very awkward for Cameron.
However I still think the best bet is to go for a new Bill removing the need for any 2018 votes.
You probably know more than me on this but I suspect courts will not be sympathetic to what look like frivolous attempts to prevent an entire Boundary Review being implemented.
The authorities dealing with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 are confused and probably would not be decided in the same fashion today. Suffice to say they all considered that Parliament's ability to remedy flaws in the Commission's recommendations reduced the "rules" governing the redistribution of seats to guidelines, and made successful judicial review difficult if not impossible. If the ability to remedy defects vested solely in the executive, this line of authority seemingly would not apply...
Spot on. Para 42 really stood out, where the District Judge ruled that support for gay marriage and homosexual sexual orientation were essentially one and the same thing, which as a matter of both law and fact has to be incorrect.
It is a classic and worrying example of the courts accepting the views of the practitioners of identity politics at face value. Whether appellate courts have the courage to reverse this madness will be interesting to see.
In light of the ruling, if a gay baker were to refuse an order from a Free Presbyterian for a cake bearing the slogan "Save Ulster from sodomy" would he/she be guilty of discrimination on grounds of religious or political belief?
One key factor in the boundary review (It makes little odds long term to Con or Lab success probabilities I reckon) is that the Lib Dems won't be a major factor this time. They clearly voted against 600 in order to not become a near extinct party in single figures with their MPs.
That worked out well
The LDs needed to pull the plug early. They looked down at their busted flush and rather than folding they kept shovelling money into the pot.
Calum In Canada the Bloc Quebecois won most seats in Quebec at every Canadian general election from 1993 to 2011. I would not be surprised if Scotland follows suit, especially because the SNP can easily win most seats on a minority vote. I think the SNP are more likely to lose their majority at Holyrood because of the PR element and more tactical voting, indeed Quebec general elections switched every 2 or 3 elections between the Liberals and the Nationalists
Voting intentions for Holyrood have the SNP 7% ahead of their 2011 performance, unless their support collapses tactical voting will only save a few seats. Tactical voting at the regional list level could be dangerous. For example if SCUP voters in Glasgow vote SLAB, Ruth could lose her seat, similarly if SLAB vote SCUP they could lose a seat.
Turnout will also be a factor, likely be lower than GE2015, I think this will benefit the SNP. At the end of the day even if the SNP fall short of a majority the Greens will support them.
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt Tristram Julian William Hunt Maria Frances Lewis Miller Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw John Flashy Lawrence Whittingdale Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles David London Lammy Roderick James Nugent Stewart Alan Arthur Johnson Andrew Murray Burnham Ian Richard Peregrine Liddell-Grainger Alan Gordon Barraclough Haselhurst Ifor Huw Irranca-Davies Lady Victoria Lorne Peta Borwick Lucy Maria Powell Nicholas William Peter Clegg
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt Tristram Julian William Hunt Maria Frances Lewis Miller Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw John Flashy Lawrence Whittingdale Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles David London Lammy Roderick James Nugent Stewart Alan Arthur Johnson Andrew Murray Burnham Ian Richard Peregrine Liddell-Grainger Alan Gordon Barraclough Haselhurst Ifor Huw Irranca-Davies Lady Victoria Lorne Peta Borwick Lucy Maria Powell Nicholas William Peter Clegg
In light of the ruling, if a gay baker were to refuse an order from a Free Presbyterian for a cake bearing the slogan "Save Ulster from sodomy" would he/she be guilty of discrimination on grounds of religious or political belief?
The Judge held that at [42] that:
[I]f a comparator is required, the correct comparator is a heterosexual person placing an order for a cake with the graphics either “Support Marriage” or “Support Heterosexual Marriage.”
Presumably, unless the homosexual baker would have also refused an order from a homosexual for a cake with a slogan saying "Support sodomy in Ulster", he would have committed direct discrimination against the Free Presbyterian on the ground of his religion. After all, if the Judge is right, membership of the Free Presbyterian Church is probably "indissociable" from opposition to homosexuality in Ulster. From having a quick scan of Part VI of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, it seems that the bakery could either appeal as of right to the High Court, or apply to the judge to state a case on a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Only if they do the latter, it would appear, can the case end up in the Supreme Court.
Away from cakes, and back to the point of the thread, why is the Irish Nationalist vote in decline?
Back in the mid-90's, I can remember plenty of predictions of a Nationalist Northern Ireland by 2016, yet he we are with the Nationalists polling 37/38%.
Hooray! I've only just remembered that this week is the Eurovision Sonk Ontest. I'm hoping there will be some cute people like Alexander Rybak (Norway 2009) or whoever.
Hooray! I've only just remembered that this week is the Eurovision Sonk Ontest. I'm hoping there will be some cute people like Alexander Rybak (Norway 2009) or whoever.
Calum If, for example, Tories vote Labour in Glasgow or Edinburgh but Tory on the list that would be a sensible strategy. The Greens also only have 2 seats so that does not give the SNP that much leeway and the SNP and Greens do not agree on anything anyway
Calum If, for example, Tories vote Labour in Glasgow or Edinburgh but Tory on the list that would be a sensible strategy. The Greens also only have 2 seats so that does not give the SNP that much leeway and the SNP and Greens do not agree on anything anyway
I don't think Tories voting Labour at a Glasgow constituency level would save many seats. Ruth got 5.9% of the Glasgow list vote in 2011, by encouraging Glasgow Tories to vote tactically at a constituency level, there must be a risk that many of them not fully understanding the regional list would end up voting SLAB on the list as well. On current polling the Greens are likely to get between 5-10 seats.
Comments
@BrianSpanner1: The greatest photo in the history of mankind. http://t.co/fATxp9P4yh
https://twitter.com/fredbarboo/status/600676104807063552
"In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes of more equal value. We will implement the boundary reforms that Parliament has already approved and make them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission reports in 2018."
Now the key phrase here is "make them apply automatically".
As the law stands TODAY a new Boundary review will start in early 2016 based on 2015 electoral registers which will report in Autumn 2018. That is the law NOW - no action is required by Parliament - that will happen under the current law.
However the key phrase in the manifesto is "make them apply automatically". That is NOT the law as of today. Under the current law the Boundary Commission reports would have to be approved by Parliament (both Commons in Lords) in 2018 before being laid before the Queen.
So if the manifesto is to be complied with it appears there will need to be a brief new law introduced to remove the need for Parliamentary votes in 2018. This is exactly what the Conservatives attempted to do in 2012. At the same time as Lab / LD amended the Electoral Registration Bill to cancel the last Boundary review, the Conservatives moved an amendment (which was obviously defeated) which provided for the Prime Minister to directly lay the Boundary Commission reports before the Queen without any need for a Parliamentary vote.
So we await the Queens Speech - is this what Cameron will now attempt to do again?
650 > 600 isn't going to happen - not sure any party supports it.
Sounds like something from Top Trumps "Horrors"
http://www.fustar.info/wp-content/images/death.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrenpoint_ambush
Similarly an Airbus sold to Singapore will have wings made in Bristol, but will show as a British export to France and a French export to Singapore. I believe that a lot of our EU trade is mislabelled this way.
Enjoy the Islay peat while considering such matters!
It is also confirmed in the Con manifesto - see below.
To go back to 650, a new Act of Parliament will be required - and it will be required immediately as under the current law the next Boundary review starts in approx 8 months time and it will be done to create 600 seats.
We'll know when we see the Queens Speech.
I could see Labour proposing an amendment to determine boundaries on the basis of population instead of electorate, but would expect that to be defeated. Not so sure about changing the law back from 600 to 650.
I also expect literally hundreds and hundreds of other amendments in the Lords - it will be a repeat of 2010 with the Committee stage in the Lords going on for days and days and days.
Whether the amendment to go back to 650 will be passed in the Commons - who knows - it needs 9 Con backbenchers to vote for it.
Remember 4 Con backbenchers voted with Lab / LD to cancel the last Boundary review - which is why Cameron cannot trust his backbenchers on this.
Which, in turn, is why the Bill will be needed because he can't trust them not to rebel and vote the whole thing down in 2018 (plus issue of Lords in 2018).
That worked out well
http://order-order.com/2015/05/19/lord-chancellor-michael-gove-sworn-in/
Toby Perkins looks like a Liz's fans given his recent tweets.
Our friend Emma Double-Surname from South Shields backs Butcher.
The judge purported to follow Preddy v Bull [2013] 1 WLR 3741, where a bare majority of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC & Lord Hughes JSC dissenting) held that civil partners were indistinguishable from married couples under the law, and thus that a refusal to serve to civil partners because they were not married amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Whether Preddy v Bull is rightly decided or not, it is clearly distinguishable, since support for gay marriage and being gay are not indistinguishable as a matter of law. The Judge was effectively bound by, and should have followed James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (HL), where it was held that the claimant must demonstrate that he would have received different treatment from the defendant but for the protected characteristic. The District Judge did not even cite James v Eastleigh BC.
The point is Cameron is on an absolute knife-edge over this - Con now has all 6 Cornish MPs who will be under massive pressure due to the need for a seat crossing the Devon / Cornwall border (that applies whether it's 600 or 650 - due to reduction in variance now allowed) plus likely Welsh rebellion plus other trouble makers - it's very, very easy to see 9 MPs rebelling.
I think there remains a very real risk that he doesn't get a Boundary review through this Parliament - whatever approach he follows he is in grave risk of defeat.
But best bet is to go for a Bill now - and remove the need for any votes in 2018.
Manchester Evening News have a report on who the Greater Manchester MPs will back
Ann Coffey says she will nominate Kendall but she's unsure who to vote for.
Michael Meacher, Yasmine Qureshi, Yvonne Fovargue, Lisa Nandy, David Crausby and Barbara Keeley are backing Burnham along previously announced Abrahams and Gwynne.
Lucy Powell says she will "almost certainly’ be backing Mr Burnham.
Mike Kane backs Creagh. Kate Green supports Cooper.
Rest is undecided.
However I still think the best bet is to go for a new Bill removing the need for any 2018 votes.
You probably know more than me on this but I suspect courts will not be sympathetic to what look like frivolous attempts to prevent an entire Boundary Review being implemented.
One other thing he might try is to bring the deadline for the reports forward from 1 October 2018 to say 1 June 2018 - that should still be feasible for the Commissions and it would just give that bit more of a buffer in case there are legal challenges.
*_*
I'm just very glad not to be anywhere near it - though it's very amusing and incredibly childish.
Seeing some of the posts on here today, I'm minded to think, not for the first time, that I should really get all my legal advice from PB. Now if only I needed legal advice.
A central question for me, which was unanswered, is whether the bakery would have refused to make any cake with a message where its owners in all conscience felt that it went against their beliefs or just this one. If the bakers would have made other cakes with messages of which they disapproved ("free IRA prisoners", perhaps), then that would seem to me to be discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
ToriesForLucy!!
Marriage of Sarah Palin's daughter BRISTOL PALIN (can hear you Brits giggling) and US Congressional Medal of Honor winner DAKOTA MEYER is off.
Supposedly due to "tabloid" rumors that he's (allegedly) already married
Cream puff, anyone?
Known for his impish sense of humour, Hailsham raised one hand in the air and boomed across the empty hall "Neil!".
With predictable results...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11616449/Sketch-Is-this-man-the-next-leader-of-the-Tory-party-Hmm....html
From memory the Courts were very dismissive - I think the point was made that a disagreement over one seat should not be allowed to derail the review for the whole country.
It's also quite hard to argue that the Boundary Commission has done anything wrong - as long as they hold all the consultations properly and abide by all rules then it's hard to challenge solely on the basis that you don't like their final decision.
I fully respect what you say on this but I do think if Cameron can get the Order in Council done by mid 2018 it's pretty unlikely that the courts would prevent the new seats being used in 2020.
I moved away, I think he married again,
He was a wonderful man and brilliant to listen to. There have not been many politicians of his calibre
(sent you a PM, by the way)
Turnout will also be a factor, likely be lower than GE2015, I think this will benefit the SNP. At the end of the day even if the SNP fall short of a majority the Greens will support them.
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt
Tristram Julian William Hunt
Maria Frances Lewis Miller
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw
John Flashy Lawrence Whittingdale
Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles
David London Lammy
Roderick James Nugent Stewart
Alan Arthur Johnson
Andrew Murray Burnham
Ian Richard Peregrine Liddell-Grainger
Alan Gordon Barraclough Haselhurst
Ifor Huw Irranca-Davies
Lady Victoria Lorne Peta Borwick
Lucy Maria Powell
Nicholas William Peter Clegg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham/11616686/Andy-Burnhams-wife-Marie-France-attacks-his-rivals-on-Twitter.html
Back in the mid-90's, I can remember plenty of predictions of a Nationalist Northern Ireland by 2016, yet he we are with the Nationalists polling 37/38%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiH4BFTELME