So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
An excellent summary.
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
It is. In addition, can I ask if David thinks it possible that they could find the prorogation power justiciable and still find for the government ?
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
An excellent summary.
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
Yes, excellent indeed. It is for posts such as these one keeps returning to PB.com.
For a comparison with a different view I was grateful to be referred earlier to this:
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
To be fair the audience wasn’t sycophants given the labour metro mayors are all there. Hi speech was politely applauded for ten seconds with little enthusiasm
10 seconds is enough applause for a CCHQ video clip.
I may have exaggerated a bit
It is a serious point, however. It is now easy for parties to send video clips to subsets of their own supporters, and it will be easy to find short clips of Boris or Jeremy or Jo or Nicola at the top of their game and saying just the right thing about hospitals or police or Europe that the party has identified as pressing your buttons.
In unrelated news, Dominic Cummings has ordered that the government's websites be used to gather information on users. Luckily, none of this will be used for party political purposes!
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
While he has half of a point with ‘majoritarian’, ‘dictatorship’ is absurd.
Siding with the majority in Parliament against the government is not that.
Hyberbolic language is always self-defeating. "Dictatorship" here, and "coup" and "fascist" elsewhere from other directions. However, the only change I would make to that is to substitute "partisan" for "dictatorship".
This is a rogue partisan Speaker who thinks is quite reasonable to display "B*ll*cks to Brexit" on his car.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
An excellent summary.
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
I think that they will simply reduce the orders in council retrospectively with the consequence that Parliament is no longer prorogued. What happens then is up to Parliament but as the Government still has control of the order paper I don’t know what happens if they simply don’t table any business. My guess is that the Speaker will seek to act but we are in completely uncharted waters, well out of sight of land.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
Do you think he maybe sniffed too much of 'the real thing'?
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Thanks David. It's interesting that they dismiss the idea that there are any special considerations arising from Scottish law only. That makes the task of the SC a bit easier in reaching an overriding judgement.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
If Boris had campaigned for REMAIN in 2016 @Scott_P would be bowing down in front of his great hero.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
Do you think he maybe sniffed too much of 'the real thing'?
I wouldn't know! But memory is a curious one. It's a skill that's often derided, but I do think it's something that should be valued.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
An excellent summary.
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
It is. In addition, can I ask if David thinks it possible that they could find the prorogation power justiciable and still find for the government ?
It’s possible, especially if the government gave a more comprehensive explanation than they gave to the Court in Edinburgh.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
That was what struck me during the time I spent with him when he was Mayor. Each time we stopped anywhere he asked his officials where he was, what he was doing there, what the object was, what he’d done before on the same issue. Possibly he was simply checking his facts before launching into the public, but some of the questions were so basic as to suggest a degree of cluelessness.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
I don’t think that the Speaker is supposed be to be neutral. He has to be on the side of the Commons and help it hold the executive to account. He is entitled to be aggressive in seeking to stop a government from frustrating the will of the Commons. But he should not adopt a partisan view on the merits of the issue before the House. That’s where he has gone too far.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
While he has half of a point with ‘majoritarian’, ‘dictatorship’ is absurd.
Siding with the majority in Parliament against the government is not that.
Hyberbolic language is always self-defeating. "Dictatorship" here, and "coup" and "fascist" elsewhere from other directions. However, the only change I would make to that is to substitute "partisan" for "dictatorship".
This is a rogue partisan Speaker who thinks is quite reasonable to display "B*ll*cks to Brexit" on his car.
The simple thing is Bercow has been Speaker during governments either of coalition or C&S and only, briefly, one majority government. This is important. Had their been 3 majority governments, he would not have been able to nor necessarily needed to do many of the things he did, because the Speaker interprets the rules of the House and the House makes the rules on how it works. With the government not having control of a majority of the House, it means the Speaker is needed more often to solve the tensions. He has done so in his own way, empowering backbenchers and the opposition, such that the House as an institution has had a lot of discretion over the executive. Probably not a bad thing, and also not necessarily a partisan one.
Mr. Gate, the Speaker is meant to be neutral on policies, and he evidently is not.
As for having the majority of the Commons, he has slightly over half, if the applause divide is indicative. And because of his helpful views [from their perspective] on the EU he was allowed to remain in post despite the bullying allegations.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
Sounds like Eighth Army News edited by Warwick Charlton ex Daily Sketch?
Plenty of hits in Google - interestingly Charlton had the support of Gen Montgomery against attacks by other brasshats.
Many thanks, Carnyx. That could well be it.
He was a prolific letter writer and I am fortunate to have a box full of them preserved by my Mum. They would probably contain the answer. I must archive them soon before I go to join him in the great Mess Room in the sky.
That's a very special piece of family history.
I seem to remember reading that more generally the current affairs discussion groups led by Education Officers - themselves apt to be conscripted lecturers and not at all likely to be the average pre-war Army officer - were also important in shaping thinking about what sort of home the heroes were to return to. Especially sitting around in the army of occupation for a couple of months, I guess.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
That was what struck me during the time I spent with him when he was Mayor. Each time we stopped anywhere he asked his officials where he was, what he was doing there, what the object was, what he’d done before on the same issue. Possibly he was simply checking his facts before launching into the public, but some of the questions were so basic as to suggest a degree of cluelessness.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
He is neutral in the sense that regardless of party affiliation he’s allowing parliament to express its will.
He clearly enjoys the support of the house otherwise he would have been binned ages ago.
The reactions to his resignation were a dead giveaway the this speaker is anything but neutral. What were the tributes like when Boothroyd resigned, for example?
Mr. Gate, the Speaker is meant to be neutral on policies, and he evidently is not.
As for having the majority of the Commons, he has slightly over half, if the applause divide is indicative. And because of his helpful views [from their perspective] on the EU he was allowed to remain in post despite the bullying allegations.
It's wretched.
A Speaker is supposed to defend the interests of parliament against the government, and evidently he has.
Mr. Gate, the Speaker is meant to be neutral on policies, and he evidently is not.
As for having the majority of the Commons, he has slightly over half, if the applause divide is indicative. And because of his helpful views [from their perspective] on the EU he was allowed to remain in post despite the bullying allegations.
It's wretched.
Well one way or another he'll be going on Halloween!!! I'm sure he will be an ansolute nightmare between now and then though.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
While he has half of a point with ‘majoritarian’, ‘dictatorship’ is absurd.
Siding with the majority in Parliament against the government is not that.
Hyberbolic language is always self-defeating. "Dictatorship" here, and "coup" and "fascist" elsewhere from other directions. However, the only change I would make to that is to substitute "partisan" for "dictatorship".
This is a rogue partisan Speaker who thinks is quite reasonable to display "B*ll*cks to Brexit" on his car.
The simple thing is Bercow has been Speaker during governments either of coalition or C&S and only, briefly, one majority government. This is important. Had their been 3 majority governments, he would not have been able to nor necessarily needed to do many of the things he did, because the Speaker interprets the rules of the House and the House makes the rules on how it works. With the government not having control of a majority of the House, it means the Speaker is needed more often to solve the tensions. He has done so in his own way, empowering backbenchers and the opposition, such that the House as an institution has had a lot of discretion over the executive. Probably not a bad thing, and also not necessarily a partisan one.
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
He is neutral in the sense that regardless of party affiliation he’s allowing parliament to express its will.
He clearly enjoys the support of the house otherwise he would have been binned ages ago.
He ignores the house rules if he thinks it will trigger a vote that will go 'his' way. Michael Martin resigned when a motion of no confidence was signed by just 22 MPs
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
I don’t think that the Speaker is supposed be to be neutral. He has to be on the side of the Commons and help it hold the executive to account. He is entitled to be aggressive in seeking to stop a government from frustrating the will of the Commons. But he should not adopt a partisan view on the merits of the issue before the House. That’s where he has gone too far.
That's fair. Bercow has been a strange mix of the very good and the very bad.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
He is giving them a chance to debate and vote that’s it .
Why are the ERG so frightened of MPs having a voice . Clearly they’re only allowed to if they support the no deal crash out .
Jenkin needs to STFU and stop talking garbage .
MPs have had three years to debate and come up with a position they agree on.
TBF for most of that time it's been delegated to the government. If you need the government to negotiate what parliament can then accept or reject then they can only really play a part for the brief periods that the government has an actual proposal, short of firing the government and making a new one.
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
Boris is well able to give backchat. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, less so.
Yes, you've nailed it. You can see him reaching for some risque joke or some slapstick comedy, then he remembers: Whoops, I'm PM, can't do that
I don’t think that the Speaker is supposed be to be neutral. He has to be on the side of the Commons and help it hold the executive to account. He is entitled to be aggressive in seeking to stop a government from frustrating the will of the Commons. But he should not adopt a partisan view on the merits of the issue before the House. That’s where he has gone too far.
I think he believes that the way the the government is trying to progress one particular issue is bumping up against both procedure (which he is not averse to creating on the fly himself) and the wishes of the House.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
The full video shows her saying she'd rather a Labour Brexit to a Conservative Brexit, so she doesn't sound uber remainy...
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
Boris is well able to give backchat. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, less so.
Yes, you've nailed it. You can see him reaching for some risque joke or some slapstick comedy, then he remembers: Whoops, I'm PM, can't do that
He is giving them a chance to debate and vote that’s it .
Why are the ERG so frightened of MPs having a voice . Clearly they’re only allowed to if they support the no deal crash out .
Jenkin needs to STFU and stop talking garbage .
MPs have had three years to debate and come up with a position they agree on.
TBF for most of that time it's been delegated to the government. If you need the government to negotiate what parliament can then accept or reject then they can only really play a part for the brief periods that the government has an actual proposal, short of firing the government and making a new one.
The floor of the house isn’t the only place discussions can happen, it’s only where the motions/legislation need to be passed when a common position is agreed.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Excellent post . Thanks David . Whilst I’m a staunch Remainer and not a Johnson fan I agree with you the high court opinion is more persuasive .
The real problem , how do you judge motivation beyond doubt .
I think the SC though has a problem though .
They can’t allow a PM to prorogue for as long as they like , whilst it’s unlikely a PM would use the RP to suspend for a year currently that’s possible .
A big issue is that Prorogation stops all business , whilst the normal recess doesn’t .
The party conference season is under recess . MPs could be called back .
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
Boris is well able to give backchat. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, less so.
Yes, you've nailed it. You can see him reaching for some risque joke or some slapstick comedy, then he remembers: Whoops, I'm PM, can't do that
No cameras, no entourage, in a pub (work with me here) and I'm guessing the response would not have been very comedic at all. Because I think he is a bully and he would try to bully her.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Mr. Gate, the Speaker is meant to be neutral on policies, and he evidently is not.
As for having the majority of the Commons, he has slightly over half, if the applause divide is indicative. And because of his helpful views [from their perspective] on the EU he was allowed to remain in post despite the bullying allegations.
It's wretched.
The House makes the rules, and the Speaker interprets them. If the House wanted to redefine SO24, for example, a majority could. As I said earlier, the tension is that the government doesn't really control the House as it doesn't have a majority, so the House has a lot of leverage it wouldn't usually have. May and Johnson have been very combative with the House, and because they didn't have majorities for that combativeness, the Speaker wasn't on their side. That's his job.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the wd was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
Sounds like Eighth Army News edited by Warwick Charlton ex Daily Sketch?
Plenty of hits in Google - interestingly Charlton had the support of Gen Montgomery against attacks by other brasshats.
Many thanks, Carnyx. That could well be it.
He was a prolific letter writer and I am fortunate to have a box full of them preserved by my Mum. They would probably contain the answer. I must archive them soon before I go to join him in the great Mess Room in the sky.
That's a very special piece of family history.
I seem to remember reading that more generally the current affairs discussion groups led by Education Officers - themselves apt to be conscripted lecturers and not at all likely to be the average pre-war Army officer - were also important in shaping thinking about what sort of home the heroes were to return to. Especially sitting around in the army of occupation for a couple of months, I guess.
It was clear that he and many of his demobbed mates were not at all surprised by the election result. Shame PB wasn't around at the time!
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
The full video shows her saying she'd rather a Labour Brexit to a Conservative Brexit, so she doesn't sound uber remainy...
The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Excellent post . Thanks David . Whilst I’m a staunch Remainer and not a Johnson fan I agree with you the high court opinion is more persuasive .
The real problem , how do you judge motivation beyond doubt .
I think the SC though has a problem though .
They can’t allow a PM to prorogue for as long as they like , whilst it’s unlikely a PM would use the RP to suspend for a year currently that’s possible .
A big issue is that Prorogation stops all business , whilst the normal recess doesn’t .
The party conference season is under recess . MPs could be called back .
Prorogation at this point is a disgrace. The HoC has irritated me beyond belief this year and been grossly irresponsible but that is where political questions have to be resolved and it should be sitting.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
How do the government's lawyers play this then in the Supreme Court?
If they lost in Scotland because they didn't give much of a justification then can they give more of a justification before the Supreme Court? But if they do that, does that risk the Court viewing it more as a justiciable issue?
The government's best approach to me as a lay person seems to be to argue that this is not justiciable but here is the justification anyway. Or could that be self-defeating?
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
[SNIP]
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
A very good summary indeed.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
How do the government's lawyers play this then in the Supreme Court?
If they lost in Scotland because they didn't give much of a justification then can they give more of a justification before the Supreme Court? But if they do that, does that risk the Court viewing it more as a justiciable issue?
The government's best approach to me as a lay person seems to be to argue that this is not justiciable but here is the justification anyway. Or could that be self-defeating?
The risk from their point of view of coming up with more of an explanation at this point is that the Supreme Court just might call them out as liars. That would be far worse than simply losing the case, it would surely mean Boris would have to resign immediately.
I think if I was advising the government I would stick to the High Court line and not take that risk. It's easier to argue that the Court of Session has misdirected itself by undertaking the very process that precedent says that they shouldn't, trying to judge political motives without obvious legal criteria to do so.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
The risk from their point of view of coming up with more of an explanation at this point is that the Supreme Court just might call them out as liars. That would be far worse than simply losing the case, it would surely mean Boris would have to resign immediately.
I think if I was advising the government I would stick to the High Court line and not take that risk. It's easier to argue that the Court of Session has misdirected itself by undertaking the very process that precedent says that they shouldn't, trying to judge political motives without obvious legal criteria to do so.
I mean, I would be interested in the Supreme Court really looking deeply into whether the Privy Councillors misled the Queen. They may not all think that the Queen necessarily needs to be informed for the decision to prorogue to be acceptable, but they may still hang the government out to dry for doing so.
The missing witness statement also says a lot. I liked David Allen Green comparing it to inferring guilt from someone taking the 5th in the US.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any evidence to support your assertion that there is more nastiness on one side or the other. Indeed your claim itself is really part of the problem. In my view both Pullman and the person shown upthread should both be prosecuted for incitement to violence along with anyone else who makes such suggestions.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
One of my most trenchant criticisms of the right/alt-right/whatever is that when they say they are pro-free-speech, they are simply lying. Specifically, they are perfectly OK with thoughts designated as crime, social ostracism, violent enforcement, etc, they just don't think the rules should apply to them or theirs.
Similar to the left-wingers who picket Tory Conference and spit at delegates?
No extremists think rules apply to them. Of they did they wouldn't be extremists.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the wd was for change after 14 years of Tory government
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
Sounds like Eighth Army News edited by Warwick Charlton ex Daily Sketch?
Plenty of hits in Google - interestingly Charlton had the support of Gen Montgomery against attacks by other brasshats.
Many thanks, Carnyx. That could well be it.
He was a prolific letter writer and I am fortunate to have a box full of them preserved by my Mum. They would probably contain the answer. I must archive them soon before I go to join him in the great Mess Room in the sky.
That's a very special piece of family history.
I seem to remember reading that more generally the current affairs discussion groups led by Education Officers - themselves apt to be conscripted lecturers and not at all likely to be the average pre-war Army officer - were also important in shaping thinking about what sort of home the heroes were to return to. Especially sitting around in the army of occupation for a couple of months, I guess.
It was clear that he and many of his demobbed mates were not at all surprised by the election result. Shame PB wasn't around at the time!
My very first political memory is from 1945. There were red posters around.... Vote for Capt. Gunter. I can recall my mother, whose family I later gathered were staunch Tory, saying to her sister that my father, who was destroying armaments left by the Germans in Denmark 'wanted her to vote for Ray Gunter and she didn't want to'.
If that wicket had been Smith's it would have altered the momentum of the game. It wasn't.
We seem to have been bowling at Smith with little effect ever since the WC finished. It gets depressing.
I think it was Mitchell Johnson who said, after bowling to him endlessly in the nets, he had absolutely no idea how to get him out.
There's no wicket keeper or slips, let alone an umpire, in the nets, so you can see his point.
Curran was troubling him before lunch, and Archer clearly has the means to beat him for pace, but generally we don't bowl at the stumps enough.
Isn't the issue that every time we do bowl at the stumps he flicks it away down leg side?
Now you're just being negative.
I think it more that we don't have quite the ability to bowl a consistent off stump/just outside off stump line, ball after ball, that the best Aussie bowlers do.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
How do the government's lawyers play this then in the Supreme Court?
If they lost in Scotland because they didn't give much of a justification then can they give more of a justification before the Supreme Court? But if they do that, does that risk the Court viewing it more as a justiciable issue?
The government's best approach to me as a lay person seems to be to argue that this is not justiciable but here is the justification anyway. Or could that be self-defeating?
No because if the SC think the PM had good reasons for the suspension then that nullifies the Scottish Court decision .
Because that court found the suspension was unlawful because of the motivation.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
Yes, you would think the Midlands generally would be more promising, but maybe we need to refine our definition of that geographical area.
I see the Yellow Peril got a decent result last nite in Andrea Leadsome's seat, South Northamptonshire.
Some would regard that as the Midlands, others the Deep South, whilst Southern Softies like me think of it as The Frozen North.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
Perhaps a repeal of FTPA plus prorogation length restriction act all rolled into one?
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
Yes, you would think the Midlands generally would be more promising, but maybe we need to refine our definition of that geographical area.
I see the Yellow Peril got a decent result last nite in Andrea Leadsome's seat, South Northamptonshire.
Some would regard that as the Midlands, others the Deep South, whilst Southern Softies like me think of it as The Frozen North.
All a question of perspective.
You're all ignoring the plain evidence of the video. Go to 00:40. Watch the three older northern voters give Boris their approval, as they say "We'll be all right!"
It's the world's tiniest subsample, but of the four members of the northern public here, 75% are fans of Boris.
Thanks David. Yes, proroguing is legal and the question is does it matter, apart from sticking two fingers up at us all (and HMQ) that the government said it was for normal business whereas they could have said it was so that they could all go to Stonehenge to wait for the second coming. It seems that the "excuse" (ie whether it was a lie or not) didn't matter for the High Court and mattered a lot for the Inner House.
Have I misunderstood?
No that’s pretty much it. The High Court think that the courts are not well placed to make such a judgment, the Court of Session that it’s not that difficult in this particular case.
How do the government's lawyers play this then in the Supreme Court?
If they lost in Scotland because they didn't give much of a justification then can they give more of a justification before the Supreme Court? But if they do that, does that risk the Court viewing it more as a justiciable issue?
The government's best approach to me as a lay person seems to be to argue that this is not justiciable but here is the justification anyway. Or could that be self-defeating?
No because if the SC think the PM had good reasons for the suspension then that nullifies the Scottish Court decision .
Because that court found the suspension was unlawful because of the motivation.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
Unnecessarily catty.
Haha
I wasn't going to post it, but then I saw he put "yawn" in response to someone else, so thought ah why not?
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
Perhaps a repeal of FTPA plus prorogation length restriction act all rolled into one?
I fear that Boris' abuse of prorogation has fatally weakened the argument for repealing the FTPA. Our conventions work on the basis that those in office use them appropriately. That can no longer be assumed.
Comments
In addition, can I ask if David thinks it possible that they could find the prorogation power justiciable and still find for the government ?
Have I misunderstood?
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
For a comparison with a different view I was grateful to be referred earlier to this:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/10/paul-craig-prorogation-three-assumptions/
I have absolutely no idea which view will prevail.
Shows how much people really despise him.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/beto-orourke-death-threat-debate-pledge-take-assault-style-weapons.html
In unrelated news, Dominic Cummings has ordered that the government's websites be used to gather information on users. Luckily, none of this will be used for party political purposes!
This is a rogue partisan Speaker who thinks is quite reasonable to display "B*ll*cks to Brexit" on his car.
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
I think that they will simply reduce the orders in council retrospectively with the consequence that Parliament is no longer prorogued. What happens then is up to Parliament but as the Government still has control of the order paper I don’t know what happens if they simply don’t table any business. My guess is that the Speaker will seek to act but we are in completely uncharted waters, well out of sight of land.
He clearly enjoys the support of the house otherwise he would have been binned ages ago.
That was what struck me during the time I spent with him when he was Mayor. Each time we stopped anywhere he asked his officials where he was, what he was doing there, what the object was, what he’d done before on the same issue. Possibly he was simply checking his facts before launching into the public, but some of the questions were so basic as to suggest a degree of cluelessness.
He is giving them a chance to debate and vote that’s it .
Why are the ERG so frightened of MPs having a voice . Clearly they’re only allowed to if they support the no deal crash out .
Jenkin needs to STFU and stop talking garbage .
FPT @AlastairMeeks laid Hillary Clinton. Someone is backing her because Shadsy has just cut her into 20/1.
As for having the majority of the Commons, he has slightly over half, if the applause divide is indicative. And because of his helpful views [from their perspective] on the EU he was allowed to remain in post despite the bullying allegations.
It's wretched.
I seem to remember reading that more generally the current affairs discussion groups led by Education Officers - themselves apt to be conscripted lecturers and not at all likely to be the average pre-war Army officer - were also important in shaping thinking about what sort of home the heroes were to return to. Especially sitting around in the army of occupation for a couple of months, I guess.
Bercow has been a strange mix of the very good and the very bad.
It wasn't.
The real problem , how do you judge motivation beyond doubt .
I think the SC though has a problem though .
They can’t allow a PM to prorogue for as long as they like , whilst it’s unlikely a PM would use the RP to suspend for a year currently that’s possible .
A big issue is that Prorogation stops all business , whilst the normal recess doesn’t .
The party conference season is under recess . MPs could be called back .
He does waffle in the heckled speech, however.
His target is the older Leave voters in the background, who give him the thumbs up. Check the vid.
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I am myopic though, -5.5 and -5.0
If they lost in Scotland because they didn't give much of a justification then can they give more of a justification before the Supreme Court? But if they do that, does that risk the Court viewing it more as a justiciable issue?
The government's best approach to me as a lay person seems to be to argue that this is not justiciable but here is the justification anyway. Or could that be self-defeating?
https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1172391925841678336
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
Curran was troubling him before lunch, and Archer clearly has the means to beat him for pace, but generally we don't bowl at the stumps enough.
I think if I was advising the government I would stick to the High Court line and not take that risk. It's easier to argue that the Court of Session has misdirected itself by undertaking the very process that precedent says that they shouldn't, trying to judge political motives without obvious legal criteria to do so.
The missing witness statement also says a lot. I liked David Allen Green comparing it to inferring guilt from someone taking the 5th in the US.
I think it more that we don't have quite the ability to bowl a consistent off stump/just outside off stump line, ball after ball, that the best Aussie bowlers do.
And also our No.s 3 & 4 aren't as good as theirs.
Because that court found the suspension was unlawful because of the motivation.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1172509492048740352
I see the Yellow Peril got a decent result last nite in Andrea Leadsome's seat, South Northamptonshire.
Some would regard that as the Midlands, others the Deep South, whilst Southern Softies like me think of it as The Frozen North.
All a question of perspective.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
It's the world's tiniest subsample, but of the four members of the northern public here, 75% are fans of Boris.
Tories take Sunderland.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I wasn't going to post it, but then I saw he put "yawn" in response to someone else, so thought ah why not?