Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
I think this comment thread shows one good reason why the courts should set the bar of justiciability of prerogative power very high indeed. Every time the court steps into matters of high policy it will find itself with critics upset at the political effects of the judgment. Yes, it will get acolytes praising the decision for its political ramifications, but that's little if any better.
Either results in people - people subject to that court's jurisdiction - having their confidence in the judiciary wholly wrongly affected by their view of the politics of the judgment, not the quality of the judgment. That's not the way it should be. The UK courts are not SCOTUS or the CJEU. They are not supposed to have a political bias, or function, or even a view.
I know some of you will be much more willing to see greater judicial oversight in such matters. Lord Reed would be amongst them, and he's the next president of the supreme court. But the extension of justiciability isn't a panacea. Far from it. We wouldn't ask the court to say which football team to support, which client to take on, or whether one's paramour is a wrongun. Each is a judgement call, not a judgment.
So it must be for prerogative power. Giving the judiciary control over the executive would land you with the same sort of crisis that the FTPA has caused by giving the legislature the sign over HMG. We separate the powers of executive, legislature and judiciary for good reasons. This is one of them.
point of order, FTPA has not caused a crisis. The dysfunction in government is due to political choices, in that a PM has tried to work push through something unpopular within the wider parliament, driven out dozens of his own MPs and as not yet come to the conclusion that he should resign because he would prefer an election that isn't due and again is no wanted by parliament (yet).
Regardless of which side you think is right, power is being exercised correctly and constitutionally, except in one case where, subject to appeal, the government has acted unlawfully. Which brings us onto your main point. The separation of powers is an integral part of good governance, and in instances where the executive is willing to flout the constitution* to suspend parliament, the judiciary is our only possible remedy. Under a different political system, where the head of state had real discretion to refuse to grant assent to prerogative power, it would be unnecessary to have this judicial oversight. I would prefer that to be the case. But that's not where we're at.
+++There must be a check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it.+++ Without that check, democracy is permanently at risk.
Boris is certainly winning more Labour voters, 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting are now voting Tory with Yougov this week while only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The Tories will also be helped by the fact far more Labour voters are now voting LD than was the case in 2017, 18% with Yougov this week while it is not only the Tories losing votes to the Brexit Party, 8% of 2017 Labour voters are now voting Brexit Party with Yougov too.
Indeed. And the data on which the argument in the thread rests is hopelessly outdated. It dates back to the fag end of May's premiership in March 2019, when there was a different closet Remainer Conservative PM flogging an agreement unpopular in the country amongst both Remainers and Leavers.
Recent data leads to the opposite conclusion to the thread and one which supports yours. It prompted Opinium to comment with their most recent poll that: ".... the Conservatives currently have a sizeable lead because for the first time since the 2017 general election we are recording a direct shift in votes between the two major parties. Just over a fifth (22%) of Labour Leave voters are now intending to vote Conservative, prioritising Brexit over traditional party loyalties."
That is in fact understating the scale of the shift, because in that poll 41% of Labour Leavers switched to either the Conservatives or Brexit Party, almost as many as the 45% who still intend to vote for Corbyn.
You don't understand how the BES polling waves work do you?
As has been pointed out regardless of the size of the Tory lead or when there's no Tory lead the Labour voter metrics are largely the same in previous waves.
Plus as noted the Tories were picking up even more Labour switchers in early 2017 in the standard opinion polls than they are now but they never turned actually did switch to the Tories on election day.
I am looking at the tiny small print in the data chart you put up to support your thread argument which reads "March 2019". My point is that analysis of analysis of such old data under a former PM is pretty worthless when set against more recent and data relevant to the current PM.
I am also well aware of your arguments about Labour switchers in early 2017 not following through at the GE because you have repeated it here several times now. To justify your argument you are relying on the assumption that the huge narrowing of May's polling lead at that point must happen again, and as such are in the same camp as Justin124. I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
Misbehaving in the Warrington area? Well, I never!
I thought that was rugby league area?
Years ago on a Friday night my train to Liverpool broke down in Warrington, turns out Warrington has one of the few JD Sports shop with an evening wear section.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory in 2017, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
Misbehaving in the Warrington area? Well, I never!
I am looking at the tiny small print in the data chart you put up to support your thread argument which reads "March 2019". My point is that analysis of analysis of such old data under a former PM is pretty worthless when set against more recent and data relevant to the current PM.
I am also well aware of your arguments about Labour switchers in early 2017 not following through at the GE because you have repeated it here several times now. To justify your argument you are relying on the assumption that the huge narrowing of May's polling lead at that point must happen again, and as such are in the same camp as Justin124. I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted.
Well if you had a bit of knowledge or done some research you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.
This time it will be different is the most expensive sentence in the English language.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and the Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undelierable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Cheered me up immensely ☺
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
I think this comment thread shows one good reason why the courts should set the bar of justiciability of prerogative power very high indeed. Every time the court steps into matters of high policy it will find itself with critics upset at the political effects of the judgment. Yes, it will get acolytes praising the decision for its political ramifications, but that's little if any better.
Either results in people - people subject to that court's jurisdiction - having their confidence in the judiciary wholly wrongly affected by their view of the politics of the judgment, not the quality of the judgment. That's not the way it should be. The UK courts are not SCOTUS or the CJEU. They are not supposed to have a political bias, or function, or even a view.
I know some of you will be much more willing to see greater judicial oversight in such matters. Lord Reed would be amongst them, and he's the next president of the supreme court. But the extension of justiciability isn't a panacea. Far from it. We wouldn't ask the court to say which football team to support, which client to take on, or whether one's paramour is a wrongun. Each is a judgement call, not a judgment.
So it must be for prerogative power. Giving the judiciary control over the executive would land you with the same sort of crisis that the FTPA has caused by giving the legislature the sign over HMG. We separate the powers of executive, legislature and judiciary for good reasons. This is one of them.
Wading again into a topic I know nothing about, it seems the case turns around whether the government's right to prerogate is absolute or whether it is legally constrained. The English courts appear to favour the first; the inner Court of Session the second. Philosophically, it seems right there should be legal constraints on any power. The question is where you draw the line. Having decided this prerogation was in scope, the Scottish Court unanimously decided the purpose was invalid because the UK government put up no evidential defence of its action. The English courts never got to consider the evidence.
So while your comment about not opening political decisions to legal oversight is a very valid one, this particular plot by the government was so egregious it's the exception that proves they principle.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Are they planning to vote LD or Lab if there is a GE soon?
Either is possible as the person said they could see Corbyn sorting it out. The person voted Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron, then May. The person did not like Corbyns economic approach but would tolerate it. I suggested LD being a protest vote but i could see the person going Labour. I found it very interesting and I detect real fear out in the country on No Deal. Not stuff on TV but conversations I have heard on Trains etc. Of course I have also heard pro-brexit dialogue as well but this tends to be from the less enlightened.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory in 2017, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
But enough about you.....
No not me! I did not vote Leave. I have more sense!
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and the Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undelierable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Cheered me up immensely ☺
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and the Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undelierable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Cheered me up immensely ☺
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
My guage is Leave is on the decline and fragmenting at the moment.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
More likely we would have looked at his technique and dropped him after a couple of tests. In his first year he averaged 23, after 3 years still averaging 34, doubt we would have the patience.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and the Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undelierable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Cheered me up immensely ☺
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
There has been polling evidence that women are not as keen on Boris as men, and the row with Carrie a few weeks back will not have helped. With this in mind probably Boris was not over-impressed by the party's new knighthoods for wifebeaters campaign.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold flag and the flags of the nations and overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions.... While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and the Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undelierable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Cheered me up immensely ☺
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
There has been polling evidence that women are not as keen on Boris as men, and the row with Carrie a few weeks back will not have helped. With this in mind probably Boris was not over-impressed by the party's new knighthoods for wifebeaters campaign.
I think this comment thread shows one good reason why the courts should set the bar of justiciability of prerogative power very high indeed. Snip
Either results in people - people subject to that court's jurisdiction - having their confidence in the judiciary wholly wrongly affected by their view of the politics of the judgment, not the quality of the judgment. That's not the way it should be. The UK courts are not SCOTUS or the CJEU. They are not supposed to have a political bias, or function, or even a view.
I know some of you will be much more willing to see greater judicial oversight in such matters. Lord Reed would be amongst them, and he's the next president of the supreme court. But the extension of justiciability isn't a panacea. Far from it. We wouldn't ask the court to say which football team to support, which client to take on, or whether one's paramour is a wrongun. Each is a judgement call, not a judgment.
So it must be for prerogative power. Giving the judiciary control over the executive would land you with the same sort of crisis that the FTPA has caused by giving the legislature the sign over HMG. We separate the powers of executive, legislature and judiciary for good reasons. This is one of them.
point of order, FTPA has not caused a crisis. The dysfunction in government is due to political choices, in that a PM has tried to work push through something unpopular within the wider parliament, driven out dozens of his own MPs and as not yet come to the conclusion that he should resign because he would prefer an election that isn't due and again is no wanted by parliament (yet).
Regardless of which side you think is right, power is being exercised correctly and constitutionally, except in one case where, subject to appeal, the government has acted unlawfully. Which brings us onto your main point. The separation of powers is an integral part of good governance, and in instances where the executive is willing to flout the constitution* to suspend parliament, the judiciary is our only possible remedy. Under a different political system, where the head of state had real discretion to refuse to grant assent to prerogative power, it would be unnecessary to have this judicial oversight. I would prefer that to be the case. But that's not where we're at.
+++There must be a check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it.+++ Without that check, democracy is permanently at risk.
The FTPA has caused a crisis. Or if it hasn't, a PM who can't call an election despite losing a vote of confidence and is held hostage by a house that can only rush through negative legislation of its own proposition will do until the crisis gets here.
The correct check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it is an action of that body itself.
I am looking at the tiny small print in the data chart you put up to support your thread argument which reads "March 2019". My point is that analysis of analysis of such old data under a former PM is pretty worthless when set against more recent and data relevant to the current PM.
I am also well aware of your arguments about Labour switchers in early 2017 not following through at the GE because you have repeated it here several times now. To justify your argument you are relying on the assumption that the huge narrowing of May's polling lead at that point must happen again, and as such are in the same camp as Justin124. I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted.
Well if you had a bit of knowledge or done some research you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.
This time it will be different is the most expensive sentence in the English language.
Can you really be claiming that the data is from after March 2019, given that the chart in the header that you published with your thread states "Source: BES Internet Panel Wave 15 (March 2019)"?
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold flag and the flags of the nations and overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions.... While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
Since we're on anecdotes, I'll share my most recent three conversations with folk other than close friends and family. One, a big fan of Ruth Davidson says he doesn't want an election because he doesn't want to vote for anyone. He knows it can't be the Tories because of, well, everything, can't be the SNP because of the union, can't work out whether he hates Scottish Labour more or the national Labour party and doesn't see the point of the Lib Dems at all. I've got him down as an abstain or at the outside a Lib Dem protest (safe Labour Scottish seat). Another, someone who I've always had down as a Labour-Conservative switherer has suddenly joined the Greens. This guy tries to take neutral view on Brexit and I think wouldn't lift a finger to help either side in another referendum. Cites plastic pollution as a driving factor in his decision (ultra safe English Labour seat). Lastly, a colleague who's following his wife into the Labour Party. Highly motivated by stopping Brexit and didn't seem interested in the ongoing ambiguity in Labour's stance and will definitely vote for them no matter who stands (Labour-majority in 2017 but MP has left the party, English seat).
Small unrepresentative sample, but a definite feeling of "all over the place".
It seems weird given the US is relaxing laws around weed, doesn't it?
I can understand people being against tobacco smoking, and other people being in favour of cannabis smoking, but I don't understand why so many people passionately hold both opinions at the same time.
You can't vape but you can shoot !
Stage 0: ...thing is illegal Stage 1: why is this illegal? Commentators points to unharmed people Stage 2: this must be legalised! Commentators point to happy people Stage 3: freedom of action! Commentators scream loudly! Stage 4: weak-willed legislators make thing legal Stage 5: why is this legal? Commentators point to harmed people Stage 6: this must be delegalised! Commentators point to unhappy people. Stage 7: safety and fairness! Commentators scream loudly. Stage 8: weak-willed legislators make thing illegal Stage 0: thing is illegal....
When you realise that legality and illegality are decisions made and enforced by people who may be stupid, malevolent, decadent or distanced, the world makes a lot more sense...
I am looking at the tiny small print in the data chart you put up to support your thread argument which reads "March 2019". My point is that analysis of analysis of such old data under a former PM is pretty worthless when set against more recent and data relevant to the current PM.
I am also well aware of your arguments about Labour switchers in early 2017 not following through at the GE because you have repeated it here several times now. To justify your argument you are relying on the assumption that the huge narrowing of May's polling lead at that point must happen again, and as such are in the same camp as Justin124. I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted.
Well if you had a bit of knowledge or done some research you wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.
This time it will be different is the most expensive sentence in the English language.
Can you really be claiming that the data is from after March 2019, given that the chart in the header that you published with your thread states "Source: BES Internet Panel Wave 15 (March 2019)"?
No, I'm pointing out the previous other waves show similar things, so that covers periods with huge Tory leads, and no Tory leads whatsoever
That could save us from a no deal Brexit . Joanna Cherry and Jo Maugham deserve huge respect and admiration for their efforts to stop Bozo and his unhinged cabinet from driving the UK over a cliff .
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Are they planning to vote LD or Lab if there is a GE soon?
I suggest that quite a lot of people would vote at the moment on the basis of 'Who can deliver competent and stable government?' rather than on policy. If such a choice was available. The possibility that no party has a decent claim to be the party of dull competence is a bit of a gap in the market. Tory - no comment needed. Labour - ditto. SNP - not standing in 600 seats, and where they do they promise break up and unquantifiable disruption. Brexit - enough said. Could it be a LibDem usp?
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Are they planning to vote LD or Lab if there is a GE soon?
I suggest that quite a lot of people would vote at the moment on the basis of 'Who can deliver competent and stable government?' rather than on policy. If such a choice was available. The possibility that no party has a decent claim to be the party of dull competence is a bit of a gap in the market. Tory - no comment needed. Labour - ditto. SNP - not standing in 600 seats, and where they do they promise break up and unquantifiable disruption. Brexit - enough said. Could it be a LibDem usp?
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold flag and the flags of the nations and overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions.... While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold ld be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions.... While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
So this hypothetical PM doesn't care about the law but is deeply concerned about following precedent?
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
I spoke to someone who voted Leave and then Tory, within the last 7 days. The person now thinks Brexit is undeliverable and should be axed. The person also said in the past they liked Farage and they would vote for BJ if he became Tory leader. The person I have known a longtime has abandoned Brexit and now the Tories. The person lives in a Tory held Leave marginal. Qualitive information can be very useful when deciding how politics is being recieved.
Are they planning to vote LD or Lab if there is a GE soon?
I suggest that quite a lot of people would vote at the moment on the basis of 'Who can deliver competent and stable government?' rather than on policy. If such a choice was available. The possibility that no party has a decent claim to be the party of dull competence is a bit of a gap in the market. Tory - no comment needed. Labour - ditto. SNP - not standing in 600 seats, and where they do they promise break up and unquantifiable disruption. Brexit - enough said. Could it be a LibDem usp?
Didn't do the CUKs much good
There is no universe in which Change UK could be described as competent.
If the Conservatives changed their name, to something like National, they'd probably get more of those northerners to vote for them.
Could be a lot of truth in this. Lots of people voted for "Ruth Davidson's Team" that might not have voted Tory.
The Scottish Conservatives did have Conservative on their bumph - but in very small print. I'm interested to see how they will deal with that at the next election.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
More likely we would have looked at his technique and dropped him after a couple of tests. In his first year he averaged 23, after 3 years still averaging 34, doubt we would have the patience.
Australia has a system that develops talent through to Test level. We used to, but the County Championship no longer does so. It leaves the Selectors with little to go on but white ball form and guesswork.
Smith might have made it through our system anyway, but there's every chance he would have developed like a Jason Roy, James Vince and numerous others.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold ld be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions.... While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
So this hypothetical PM doesn't care about the law but is deeply concerned about following precedent?
The precedent of a law breaking PM will be attractive.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Good (very) hypothetical moral dilemma to consider tho'.
If after the lovely reception England's crowds have been giving him this summer Smith was persuaded that his future lay with his British citizenship, would you want him picked for England?
If the Conservatives changed their name, to something like National, they'd probably get more of those northerners to vote for them.
Could be a lot of truth in this. Lots of people voted for "Ruth Davidson's Team" that might not have voted Tory.
The Scottish Conservatives did have Conservative on their bumph - but in very small print. I'm interested to see how they will deal with that at the next election.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Good (very) hypothetical moral dilemma to consider tho'.
If after the lovely reception England's crowds have been giving him this summer Smith was persuaded that his future lay with his British citizenship, would you want him picked for England?
No, whist I have a strong belief in the rehabilitation of bad people I feel strongly that you shouldn't be able to transfer your international sporting allegiance once you've played a competitive senior game for one country.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
If the Conservatives changed their name, to something like National, they'd probably get more of those northerners to vote for them.
Could be a lot of truth in this. Lots of people voted for "Ruth Davidson's Team" that might not have voted Tory.
The Scottish Conservatives did have Conservative on their bumph - but in very small print. I'm interested to see how they will deal with that at the next election.
They won't do well, and the reasons are twofold. They've built a mini cult of personality around Davidson. Understandable, given she was a hugely effective media performer (I use the word advisedly), but the fallback when a bright star sets is reliance on the brand. The Conservatives have always had a Scottish problem (or is it the other way around?) but they had a brand that sat well with some folk. Now they've gone Ukip, what continuity is there left? The Conservatives aren't conservatives any more, they're barely unionists south of the border, and the Dear Leader is departed. Gravity will be brutal to them in Scotland next time around.
Since we're on anecdotes, I'll share my most recent three conversations with folk other than close friends and family. One, a big fan of Ruth Davidson says he doesn't want an election because he doesn't want to vote for anyone. He knows it can't be the Tories because of, well, everything, can't be the SNP because of the union, can't work out whether he hates Scottish Labour more or the national Labour party and doesn't see the point of the Lib Dems at all. I've got him down as an abstain or at the outside a Lib Dem protest (safe Labour Scottish seat). Another, someone who I've always had down as a Labour-Conservative switherer has suddenly joined the Greens. This guy tries to take neutral view on Brexit and I think wouldn't lift a finger to help either side in another referendum. Cites plastic pollution as a driving factor in his decision (ultra safe English Labour seat). Lastly, a colleague who's following his wife into the Labour Party. Highly motivated by stopping Brexit and didn't seem interested in the ongoing ambiguity in Labour's stance and will definitely vote for them no matter who stands (Labour-majority in 2017 but MP has left the party, English seat).
Small unrepresentative sample, but a definite feeling of "all over the place".
Sounds right to me. Parliament inextricably hung; voters scatter haphazardly in all directions; Parliament still inextricably hung.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
Me too. Boris winning a majority on c 35% of the vote. Taking us out of the EU. Then, an almighty battle as the low tax pro business and immigrants wing takes on the anti foreigner tax and spenders. Within the context of an already less than popular administration. Happy days.
Or - the absolute pits - the low tax / low reg and ALSO anti-foreigner people.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
And how will future Steve Smith turn out in a nation led by Johnsons and Corbyns ?
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Reversing this sort of change, presumably?
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision n to use of the rainbow flag."
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
Except the Tories did campaign to take Britain out of the EU in their manifesto but as I have said before there is little more Boris than do to stop further extension after Parliament backed the anti No Deal Bill so as Parliament is sovereign he will take the Tories into opposition rather than again fail to deliver Brexit
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
If the Conservatives changed their name, to something like National, they'd probably get more of those northerners to vote for them.
Could be a lot of truth in this. Lots of people voted for "Ruth Davidson's Team" that might not have voted Tory.
The Scottish Conservatives did have Conservative on their bumph - but in very small print. I'm interested to see how they will deal with that at the next election.
They won't do well, and the reasons are twofold. They've built a mini cult of personality around Davidson. Understandable, given she was a hugely effective media performer (I use the word advisedly), but the fallback when a bright star sets is reliance on the brand. The Conservatives have always had a Scottish problem (or is it the other way around?) but they had a brand that sat well with some folk. Now they've gone Ukip, what continuity is there left? The Conservatives aren't conservatives any more, they're barely unionists south of the border, and the Dear Leader is departed. Gravity will be brutal to them in Scotland next time around.
Though I still think the Tories will win more MPs than the 1 Davidson got in Scotland in 2015 even if they fail to match the 13 she got in 2017.
Plus 37% of Scottish voters voted to Leave the EU, more even than the 29% who voted Tory in 2017
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Good (very) hypothetical moral dilemma to consider tho'.
If after the lovely reception England's crowds have been giving him this summer Smith was persuaded that his future lay with his British citizenship, would you want him picked for England?
No, whist I have a strong belief in the rehabilitation of bad people I feel strongly that you shouldn't be able to transfer your international sporting allegiance once you've played a competitive senior game for one country.
Tricky one, TSE.
Take the case of Simon Harmer, Essex and SA. He has been the leading spin bowler in the County Championship for the past three seasons. When he came here the SA Selectors made it clear ge wouldn't be considered for the National side anymore because they didn't think he was good enough and in any case the quota system would make it almost impossible for him to be selected. He therefore opted for the three year qualifications period which is up soon and at the age of 31 he becomes eligible for England.
Tough to argue against that.
I should think he will walk into the England Team, Jack Leach notwithstanding.
There has been polling evidence that women are not as keen on Boris as men, and the row with Carrie a few weeks back will not have helped. With this in mind probably Boris was not over-impressed by the party's new knighthoods for wifebeaters campaign.
My wife cannot stand the man. Neither can my sister. And my mother hates him. I have just one niece and she is none too keen. Thinks he's a dick. So does my son's girlfriend. I also have a couple of close female friends and they reckon he's pretty ghastly.
That's 100% of my close female F&F and it's 100% negative. Boris has no chance with any of them. Neither will he get their votes in the upcoming election.
Back in 2007, a 17-year-old Aussie signed for a village cricket team in Cheshire: Grappenhall CC.
He arrived on a Tuesday but by the Friday, before a training session had even been held, he was already on his way home. The teenage cricketer had been so appalled by the boorish, drunken antics of his would-be teammates in their local, the Mulberry Tree, that he left.
It's a shame because, as the son of a UK passport holder, if things had worked out there he could have gone on to play for England.
As it was, Steve Smith opted for Australia.
We would have had the task of suspending him for being a cheating bastard instead of the Aussies!
England would never cheat at cricket, it's just not cricket.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Good (very) hypothetical moral dilemma to consider tho'.
If after the lovely reception England's crowds have been giving him this summer Smith was persuaded that his future lay with his British citizenship, would you want him picked for England?
No, whist I have a strong belief in the rehabilitation of bad people I feel strongly that you shouldn't be able to transfer your international sporting allegiance once you've played a competitive senior game for one country.
Tricky one, TSE.
Take the case of Simon Harmer, Essex and SA. He has been the leading spin bowler in the County Championship for the past three seasons. When he came here the SA Selectors made it clear ge wouldn't be considered for the National side anymore because they didn't think he was good enough and in any case the quota system would make it almost impossible for him to be selected. He therefore opted for the three year qualifications period which is up soon and at the age of 31 he becomes eligible for England.
Tough to argue against that.
I should think he will walk into the England Team, Jack Leach notwithstanding.
So he's not good enough for the SA team but he will walk into the England team?
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
Voters should be the ones deciding these things, not judges.
(As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.)
There has been polling evidence that women are not as keen on Boris as men, and the row with Carrie a few weeks back will not have helped. With this in mind probably Boris was not over-impressed by the party's new knighthoods for wifebeaters campaign.
My wife cannot stand the man. Neither can my sister. And my mother hates him. I have just one niece and she is none too keen. Thinks he's a dick. So does my son's girlfriend. I also have a couple of close female friends and they reckon he's pretty ghastly.
That's 100% of my close female F&F and it's 100% negative. Boris has no chance with any of them. Neither will he get their votes in the upcoming election.
The latest Yougov has 33% of women voting Tory but only 31% of men, though the LDs have the highest percentage of female voters of the main parties.
Labour and the Brexit Party have more male than female voters
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
This is just silly. The Republicans in the US have done very well by bending the system to their will whenever they're in power, then mercilessly attacking the Democrats at the slightest hint they might do the same. It just requires an aggressive and muscular approach - the right will always receive a latitude and benefit of the doubt in Western capitalist countries that the left will not. We just need to learn how to exploit it like the Republicans have. With our demographics, the last decade should have been one of Thatcher- / Reaganesque landslides, not pathetic, harried minority administrations.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
The FTPA has caused a crisis. Or if it hasn't, a PM who can't call an election despite losing a vote of confidence and is held hostage by a house that can only rush through negative legislation of its own proposition will do until the crisis gets here.
The correct check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it is an action of that body itself.
The fundamental problem is, surely, that we have somebody who claims to be prime minister, but who lacks a majority of the votes in the House of Commons. The same applies to Mrs May, of course, because bribing people with taxpayers`money to give their support is not really playing fair.
Johnson should never have been allowed to take the position in the first place. Parliament is absolutely correct in not letting him get away with murder as well.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
Would a written constitution decrease the amount courts, judges and the law got involved with politics, or increase it? As a layman, the experience of the US doesn't seem positive ...
There has been polling evidence that women are not as keen on Boris as men, and the row with Carrie a few weeks back will not have helped. With this in mind probably Boris was not over-impressed by the party's new knighthoods for wifebeaters campaign.
My wife cannot stand the man. Neither can my sister. And my mother hates him. I have just one niece and she is none too keen. Thinks he's a dick. So does my son's girlfriend. I also have a couple of close female friends and they reckon he's pretty ghastly.
That's 100% of my close female F&F and it's 100% negative. Boris has no chance with any of them. Neither will he get their votes in the upcoming election.
Leaving aside the question of whether Johnson is a good prime minister, not taking responsibility for your own children is a dire character trait.
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
This is just silly. The Republicans in the US have done very well by bending the system to their will whenever they're in power, then mercilessly attacking the Democrats at the slightest hint they might do the same. It just requires an aggressive and muscular approach - the right will always receive a latitude and benefit of the doubt in Western capitalist countries that the left will not. We just need to learn how to exploit it like the Republicans have. With our demographics, the last decade should have been one of Thatcher- / Reaganesque landslides, not pathetic, harried minority administrations.
Though pre Trump the Republicans had not won an Electoral College landslide in the presidential election since 1988
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
Voters should be the ones deciding these things, not judges.
(As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.)
Not really broken. The job of courts is to give certainty in decision where it is quite rational for decisions to go more than one way. It is generally only such cases that get that far. It is perfectly possible that the Supreme Court decision will involve judgements giving different verdicts from different judges. The majority will prevail, and it might be a majority of one. The Article 50 decision was a majority judgement.
Also the SC can overrule itself whereas the lower court cannot. So deciding differently from the MR and the LCJ etc (though I don't think they will on this occasion) is only a sign of a thoughtful judiciary in a free society.
If I lived China or North Korea, Russia or Syria I would be looking on with envy and admiration that the actions of the very top people in power are open to review by judges who will be obeyed.
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
Would a written constitution decrease the amount courts, judges and the law got involved with politics, or increase it? As a layman, the experience of the US doesn't seem positive ...
I think it is to some extent a sideshow. It is more important to get rid of the obvious flaws in the current system such as Royal Prerogative and Prorogation.
If the Conservatives changed their name, to something like National, they'd probably get more of those northerners to vote for them.
Could be a lot of truth in this. Lots of people voted for "Ruth Davidson's Team" that might not have voted Tory.
The Scottish Conservatives did have Conservative on their bumph - but in very small print. I'm interested to see how they will deal with that at the next election.
They won't do well, and the reasons are twofold. They've built a mini cult of personality around Davidson. Understandable, given she was a hugely effective media performer (I use the word advisedly), but the fallback when a bright star sets is reliance on the brand. The Conservatives have always had a Scottish problem (or is it the other way around?) but they had a brand that sat well with some folk. Now they've gone Ukip, what continuity is there left? The Conservatives aren't conservatives any more, they're barely unionists south of the border, and the Dear Leader is departed. Gravity will be brutal to them in Scotland next time around.
Though I still think the Tories will win more MPs than the 1 Davidson got in Scotland in 2015 even if they fail to match the 13 she got in 2017.
Plus 37% of Scottish voters voted to Leave the EU, more even than the 29% who voted Tory in 2017
Not exactly 1950s performance. And a lot of the leavers in Brexit will be normally voting Labour, SNP and LD voters - and UKIP too, who now have Brexit Party, let's not forget. All rather less likely to vote Tory than, well, pukka Conservatives.
The real complexity to my mind comes from the decline in Tory voting - The Jackson Carlaw Party Against Indyref 2' doesn't have the same ring as the Ruth Davidson equivalent - and Labour versus the rise of the LDs. Some very interesting splits there, to add to a modest rise in the SNP polling of late.
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
And finding that the Scottish courts are incorrect in finding that the PM lied isn’t going to course a bigger problem within our justice system. Sorry I can’t see the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Scottish court given the evidence made available since
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
There's a strong undertone from the lords at the Court of Session objecting to being made fools of. If the government wants to disrespect the court and democracy they should apply some finesse.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Try the LDs - they seem to have the europhilic, tax raising, virtue signalling, scolding Puritan vibe you are looking for.
Bore off.
I'm not in favour of tax raising, the opposite in fact.
And me a Puritan? ME A PURITAN? Have you ever read any of my posts? I am the least Puritan person you could imagine. I've even written and published a thread from the inside of a lap dancing club
Me a Puritan? Are you fecking high or do you need a vagina on your head so someone can feck some sense in to you?
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
And finding that the Scottish courts are incorrect in finding that the PM lied isn’t going to course a bigger problem within our justice system. Sorry I can’t see the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Scottish court given the evidence made available since
Politicians don't do the lie direct nearly as often as people think. Much more often they have more than one motive simultaneously for actions, and emphasise one but not the other in public. If courts intervened on such a basis they would be clogged up. This progation is just such a case to my mind. It is indisputable that this session has been long and a Queen's speech is overdue. Indisputable that most of the time prorogation is effective would be taken up with already planned party conferences. Indisputable that the commons has faffed around for three years. Indisputable that there won't be a new deal to consider until after prorogation ends. And finally indisputable that prorogation at this moment is a piece of opportunistic low politics (which may well deservedly backfire). The SC should consider the case carefully and chuck it out, hoping that hubris and nemesis will perform their traditional roles for them.
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
Would a written constitution decrease the amount courts, judges and the law got involved with politics, or increase it? As a layman, the experience of the US doesn't seem positive ...
Arguably the US Constitution, written mostly in 18th century English, would be much less precise and easier to bring action over than something written afresh today.
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
My criticisms of Boris Johnson are based on other things he is doing as well.
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
This is just silly. The Republicans in the US have done very well by bending the system to their will whenever they're in power, then mercilessly attacking the Democrats at the slightest hint they might do the same. It just requires an aggressive and muscular approach - the right will always receive a latitude and benefit of the doubt in Western capitalist countries that the left will not. We just need to learn how to exploit it like the Republicans have. With our demographics, the last decade should have been one of Thatcher- / Reaganesque landslides, not pathetic, harried minority administrations.
Though pre Trump the Republicans had not won an Electoral College landslide in the presidential election since 1988
Hardly surprising since they've only won the popular vote once and that wasn't by a lot - in 2004!
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
And finding that the Scottish courts are incorrect in finding that the PM lied isn’t going to course a bigger problem within our justice system. Sorry I can’t see the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Scottish court given the evidence made available since
Politicians don't do the lie direct nearly as often as people think. Much more often they have more than one motive simultaneously for actions, and emphasise one but not the other in public. If courts intervened on such a basis they would be clogged up. This progation is just such a case to my mind. It is indisputable that this session has been long and a Queen's speech is overdue. Indisputable that most of the time prorogation is effective would be taken up with already planned party conferences. Indisputable that the commons has faffed around for three years. Indisputable that there won't be a new deal to consider until after prorogation ends. And finally indisputable that prorogation at this moment is a piece of opportunistic low politics (which may well deservedly backfire). The SC should consider the case carefully and chuck it out, hoping that hubris and nemesis will perform their traditional roles for them.
Three of your indisputables are eminently disputable. One is demonstrably wrong.
Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.
That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.
You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
On behalf of which party ?
I hope for a One Nation Conservative Party that used to exit up until 2016.
Try the LDs - they seem to have the europhilic, tax raising, virtue signalling, scolding Puritan vibe you are looking for.
Bore off.
I'm not in favour of tax raising, the opposite in fact.
And me a Puritan? ME A PURITAN? Have you ever read any of my posts? I am the least Puritan person you could imagine. I've even written and published a thread from the inside of a lap dancing club
Me a Puritan? Are you fecking high or do you need a vagina on your head so someone can feck some sense in to you?
Also the disingenuousness of the Brexiters. They are simply lying when they say the courts should stay out of politics. What if PM Corbyn or PM Swinson prorogued parliament for 6 months? They'd be happy with that?
Or if, for the next EU referendum, Parliament legislated for everyone under 40 to get two votes, before the courts intervened to say it violated human rights law to give some adults more votes than others.
I don't think the courts should be involved in these sorts of decisions.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
You for a written Constitution, Richard?
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
Would a written constitution decrease the amount courts, judges and the law got involved with politics, or increase it? As a layman, the experience of the US doesn't seem positive ...
Arguably the US Constitution, written mostly in 18th century English, would be much less precise and easier to bring action over than something written afresh today.
The US Constitution was substantially lifted from 18th Century Britain, with the President as the elected Monarch, the Senate appointed as Lords (only becoming elected a century later), and the House of Representatives the House of Commons. Even the Bill of Rights was substantially copied from the British one of 1689, including the right to bear arms.
As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.
They won't do that. If betfair put it up and there was 1.05 offered on the SC disagreeing with the Scottish court I would stick £20 on and I would immediately start planning how to spend my £1 winnings. Probably a Dairy Milk.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
And finding that the Scottish courts are incorrect in finding that the PM lied isn’t going to course a bigger problem within our justice system. Sorry I can’t see the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Scottish court given the evidence made available since
Politicians don't do the lie direct nearly as often as people think. Much more often they have more than one motive simultaneously for actions, and emphasise one but not the other in public. If courts intervened on such a basis they would be clogged up. This progation is just such a case to my mind. It is indisputable that this session has been long and a Queen's speech is overdue. Indisputable that most of the time prorogation is effective would be taken up with already planned party conferences. Indisputable that the commons has faffed around for three years. Indisputable that there won't be a new deal to consider until after prorogation ends. And finally indisputable that prorogation at this moment is a piece of opportunistic low politics (which may well deservedly backfire). The SC should consider the case carefully and chuck it out, hoping that hubris and nemesis will perform their traditional roles for them.
Three of your indisputables are eminently disputable. One is demonstrably wrong.
You are mostly correct I'm afraid. All indisputables are eminently disputable. I shall await some contrarian to disagree with both of us.
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
I would love for us to get to a written constitution. I just fear that we missed the boat on that and that whatever was put together now would be as flawed as what it is replacing. I have no faith in the Great and the Good to he either great or good.
We have the Bill of Rights. Perhaps we need to start with that, improve and update it and see where that takes us.
Comments
Edit: or come across as too abrasive?
Regardless of which side you think is right, power is being exercised correctly and constitutionally, except in one case where, subject to appeal, the government has acted unlawfully. Which brings us onto your main point.
The separation of powers is an integral part of good governance, and in instances where the executive is willing to flout the constitution* to suspend parliament, the judiciary is our only possible remedy.
Under a different political system, where the head of state had real discretion to refuse to grant assent to prerogative power, it would be unnecessary to have this judicial oversight. I would prefer that to be the case. But that's not where we're at.
+++There must be a check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it.+++ Without that check, democracy is permanently at risk.
I am also well aware of your arguments about Labour switchers in early 2017 not following through at the GE because you have repeated it here several times now. To justify your argument you are relying on the assumption that the huge narrowing of May's polling lead at that point must happen again, and as such are in the same camp as Justin124. I consider your assumption to be wholly unwarranted.
Years ago on a Friday night my train to Liverpool broke down in Warrington, turns out Warrington has one of the few JD Sports shop with an evening wear section.
This time it will be different is the most expensive sentence in the English language.
And in fact I was eavesdropping some 'ordinary people' earlier - they were women - no doubt still are - and I heard a lot of 'Boris' going on - which worried me because of the matey implications - but as I listened more intently I heard another word being bandied about with approximately equal regularity and that word was 'wanker' - so ???
So while your comment about not opening political decisions to legal oversight is a very valid one, this particular plot by the government was so egregious it's the exception that proves they principle.
Steve Smith would have turned out better if he hadn't been raised in a nation descended from convicts.
Kim Clijsters is returning to professional tennis at the age of 36.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/49676558
"The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has lifted a ban on UK embassies and high commissions flying the rainbow flag during gay pride events. In one of his first policy shifts since coming to office, Johnson overturned the decision of predecessor, Philip Hammond, who insisted that only the Union flag, the EU’s blue-and-gold flag and the flags of the nations and overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be flown from Foreign Office buildings. The decision on whether and when to raise the gay pride banner will be for individual ambassadors and high commissioners, taking into account local conditions....
While still foreign secretary, Hammond last month rejected a call from the House of Commons foreign affairs committee to drop his opposition to use of the rainbow flag."
5th August 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/05/boris-johnson-lifts-ban-on-uk-embassies-flying-gay-pride-rainbow-flag
The correct check on the executive's power to sideline the body that scrutinises it is an action of that body itself.
"The British Election Study is pleased to announce the release of wave 15 of the British Election Study Internet Panel. Wave 15 was conducted in March 2019, immediately before the original Brexit deadline."
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/bes-internet-panel-wave-15-data-released/#.XXp-TC5KgdU
Can you really be claiming that the data is from after March 2019, given that the chart in the header that you published with your thread states "Source: BES Internet Panel Wave 15 (March 2019)"?
Boris is a bigger spender than Cameron and Osborne were just more of a tax cutter than May as well as being more socially liberal than she was too on the whole
One, a big fan of Ruth Davidson says he doesn't want an election because he doesn't want to vote for anyone. He knows it can't be the Tories because of, well, everything, can't be the SNP because of the union, can't work out whether he hates Scottish Labour more or the national Labour party and doesn't see the point of the Lib Dems at all. I've got him down as an abstain or at the outside a Lib Dem protest (safe Labour Scottish seat).
Another, someone who I've always had down as a Labour-Conservative switherer has suddenly joined the Greens. This guy tries to take neutral view on Brexit and I think wouldn't lift a finger to help either side in another referendum. Cites plastic pollution as a driving factor in his decision (ultra safe English Labour seat).
Lastly, a colleague who's following his wife into the Labour Party. Highly motivated by stopping Brexit and didn't seem interested in the ongoing ambiguity in Labour's stance and will definitely vote for them no matter who stands (Labour-majority in 2017 but MP has left the party, English seat).
Small unrepresentative sample, but a definite feeling of "all over the place".
Stage 1: why is this illegal? Commentators points to unharmed people
Stage 2: this must be legalised! Commentators point to happy people
Stage 3: freedom of action! Commentators scream loudly!
Stage 4: weak-willed legislators make thing legal
Stage 5: why is this legal? Commentators point to harmed people
Stage 6: this must be delegalised! Commentators point to unhappy people.
Stage 7: safety and fairness! Commentators scream loudly.
Stage 8: weak-willed legislators make thing illegal
Stage 0: thing is illegal....
When you realise that legality and illegality are decisions made and enforced by people who may be stupid, malevolent, decadent or distanced, the world makes a lot more sense...
Nobile officium!
That could save us from a no deal Brexit . Joanna Cherry and Jo Maugham deserve huge respect and admiration for their efforts to stop Bozo and his unhinged cabinet from driving the UK over a cliff .
Longstanding Leavers who unlike you actually voted Leave in the referendum see he is creating all sorts of awful precedents for people like Corbyn and his ilk to exploit when they get in to power.
For example One Nation Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law, Boris Johnson like a medieval monarch thinks the laws don't apply to him.
Just imagine a hard left winger wins a future general election after campaigning not to seize the properties of the rich.
He then decides to do exactly that, Parliament passes law banning the PM from seizing the properties of the rich, the future PM sees the Boris Johnson precedent and decides to ignore the law.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with the courts but because there is something wrong with what they are trying to adjudicate on. The constititional settlement should be massively tightened and things like the Royal Prerogative and proroguing for anything other than an immediate Queens Speech should be abolished. If we didn't have these stupid conventions then there would be no need for the courts to get involved in the first place. The problem is our constitution not the courts..
Smith might have made it through our system anyway, but there's every chance he would have developed like a Jason Roy, James Vince and numerous others.
If after the lovely reception England's crowds have been giving him this summer Smith was persuaded that his future lay with his British citizenship, would you want him picked for England?
Wonder if SI will keep their markets up if it becomes clear that it's rolling into next year?
https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/the-ashes/steve-smith-almost-played-cricket-for-england/news-story/8b98dda106523b6d52ad71a5904ace63
Seems like a good idea to me, but not until all the current fuss has died down.
Parliament inextricably hung; voters scatter haphazardly in all directions; Parliament still inextricably hung.
The Lord Lucan tendency.
Thank goodness he hasn't got a vote. Or has he?
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Plus 37% of Scottish voters voted to Leave the EU, more even than the 29% who voted Tory in 2017
Take the case of Simon Harmer, Essex and SA. He has been the leading spin bowler in the County Championship for the past three seasons. When he came here the SA Selectors made it clear ge wouldn't be considered for the National side anymore because they didn't think he was good enough and in any case the quota system would make it almost impossible for him to be selected. He therefore opted for the three year qualifications period which is up soon and at the age of 31 he becomes eligible for England.
Tough to argue against that.
I should think he will walk into the England Team, Jack Leach notwithstanding.
I have just one niece and she is none too keen. Thinks he's a dick. So does my son's girlfriend. I also have a couple of close female friends and they reckon he's pretty ghastly.
That's 100% of my close female F&F and it's 100% negative. Boris has no chance with any of them. Neither will he get their votes in the upcoming election.
(As an aside, the Queens Benh judgment on prorogation that went in favour of the Government last week comprised some very senior judges. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn that bench then the judiciary is as broken as everything else.)
Labour and the Brexit Party have more male than female voters
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/11/voting-intention-con-32-lab-23-lib-dem-19-brex-14-
Whether you're in favour of Hinkley Point or not, it's hard not to be impressed by the crane they've got to help with the construction.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-49673561
I wonder if they can put a sock in the overload bell?
Johnson should never have been allowed to take the position in the first place. Parliament is absolutely correct in not letting him get away with murder as well.
Also the SC can overrule itself whereas the lower court cannot. So deciding differently from the MR and the LCJ etc (though I don't think they will on this occasion) is only a sign of a thoughtful judiciary in a free society.
If I lived China or North Korea, Russia or Syria I would be looking on with envy and admiration that the actions of the very top people in power are open to review by judges who will be obeyed.
It will not be easy for them - since they will be presented with compelling evidence that the PM lied about the reason for suspending democracy - but they will find a way. The alternative of a massive constitutional crisis will be deemed unappealing in the extreme.
The real complexity to my mind comes from the decline in Tory voting - The Jackson Carlaw Party Against Indyref 2' doesn't have the same ring as the Ruth Davidson equivalent - and Labour versus the rise of the LDs. Some very interesting splits there, to add to a modest rise in the SNP polling of late.
I'm not in favour of tax raising, the opposite in fact.
And me a Puritan? ME A PURITAN? Have you ever read any of my posts? I am the least Puritan person you could imagine. I've even written and published a thread from the inside of a lap dancing club
Me a Puritan? Are you fecking high or do you need a vagina on your head so someone can feck some sense in to you?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1172160599771553793?s=19