To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Cameron was a convincing liar. He convinced himself he knew what he was doing.
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
PBTories implying that this guy is only claiming the NHS is in a mess because he's a Labour activist...
Have you people considered the possibility that this man (and others like him) might be a Labour activist because he's seen the damage that Tory policies do?
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Cameron was a convincing liar. He convinced himself he knew what he was doing.
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
I think Boris sets a new low benchmark that Blair could only dream of
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
He denied, in front of the cameras, that there was any press at the hospital. In front of the cameras!
*The NHS will receive more funding this year than any other year in its history
I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive (though I think they're both overblown)
AIUI, the argument is that budgets, while rising, *aren't keeping pace* with healthcare inflation, demand is rising hugely, and politicians are still promising everyone the moon on a stick, leaving CCGs/providers to ration.. either openly by removing certain treatments from the menu, or less openly by just doing everything a bit shit (in the technical parlance).
The same happens in schools where "per pupil funding to schools" is protected or increased year on year, but all that nasty "town hall bureaucracy" (er... support for schools, funding for SEN kids etc) is cut, and they have to pay for that out of the per-pupil grant.
It is a paradox. Johnson is so egregiously dishonest and incompetent that even the lowest information voter can't fail to be aware of it. Yet it doesn't make any difference. Johnson will get a deal, won't get a deal, we leave do or die on October 31. None of this matters and nobody believes any of it anyway. Johnson proves Lincoln's maxim that he can fool some of the people all of the time and if that minority is bigger than any other minority he gets the go ahead to wreak chaos for another five years.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
Some of it is due to an aging population. Some of it perhaps due to GPs who want to be paid as though they run businesses when in fact have the safest jobs in the world, with the best gold plated pensions.
There has been a bit of a drop in the GP/population ratio in England.[1] Of course, other factors are important, such as the nature of the population (getting older), other demands on GPs' time (some more admin with the reorganisations - although maybe that is largely handed off to other staff) and potentially picking up slack in other areas. Some areas may have seen much bigger drops, some improvements.
Anecdotally, it's outpatient services that I've seen changes in. My wife needs infrequent outpatient treatment for an ear issue. She used to be able to get appointments within a month or so, that's now extended to four months plus (too long to live with ear pain, we've been paying to go private instead, fortunate to be in a position to be able to do so). That could be symptomatic of wider underfunding or it might be a local issue. We do know nationally that A&E targets are missed more and more and waiting lists are increasing.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
That is a tired line, as cliched as they come, true. Though I accept the point made someone can be genuine and an activist.
To be clear in not surprised that the passion of activists is genuine, but I do think a lot of the repetition of manufactured lines by s activists is not genuine as it's about parroting stock lines. But I accept it is sometimes still genuine.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
I suspect he's the most dangerous prime minister of my lifetime. Partly because the situation we're in is so dangerous, but also because he's a dishonest, unprincipled demagogue with authoritarian instincts. Though thankfully a very incompetent one so far.
Capitalism is broken, and my view is that it's worth fixing. But if we fail, someone else will sweep it away. And god knows what that will look like but I'll wager it won't be a nice process.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
I'm on my third GP Surgery in four years after the first two collapsed. Last month when I tried to get a home visit for my mum I was bluntly told by her surgery that their four surgery combined practice had 4 full time GPs out of 13 posts. I'm middle class enough to have made them refuse a home visit knowing they would blink first but many people aren't.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
He denied, in front of the cameras, that there was any press at the hospital. In front of the cameras!
I remember Blair getting on stage, covered in sweat, convincing an audience that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs. He convinced me too!
Boris is no angel but this idea he is the devil's incarnate is a bit much. I'd suggest a Gove, or Corbyn, Mcdonnell or someone like Owen Patterson would be much more dangerous.
It is a paradox. Johnson is so egregiously dishonest and incompetent that even the lowest information voter can't fail to be aware of it. Yet it doesn't make any difference. Johnson will get a deal, won't get a deal, we leave do or die on October 31. None of this matters and nobody believes any of it anyway. Johnson proves Lincoln's maxim that he can fool some of the people all of the time and if that minority is bigger than any other minority he gets the go ahead to wreak chaos for another five years.
Do you think? I think there are plenty who will know only: - Johnson is now PM - Hes' promised to sort Brexit by the end of the month (yay! don't care how) - He's that nice/affacle/funny/straightforward bloke you seen on the telly on have i got news for you etc - He's not Corbyn, who is apparently very bad (for reasons unknown, but the papers always say so)
An election would show more of him and more of the other options. A televised debate could sink him or save him, depending on his performance - who knows?
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
This imo illustrates one problem with the NHS and especially GP debates: most patients are chronic patients. Most politicians and media commentators are acute patients. The former want stability, predictability and continuity of care. The latter, who get to set policy, are more exercised by extended opening, or electronic notes transfer between constituency and London homes.
This leads to the absurdity of Tony Blair on live television being mystified at audience complaints that mandating 2-day appointments was harming patients who needed to come back in a week, a fortnight, or nine months after conception!
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
I suspect he's the most dangerous prime minister of my lifetime. Partly because the situation we're in is so dangerous, but also because he's a dishonest, unprincipled demagogue with authoritarian instincts. Though thankfully a very incompetent one so far.
He's so authoritarian he suggested an amnesty for illegal immigrants and tried to call a general election, where, if he is as dangerous as you suggest, he surely would be voted out.
I doubt very much Johnson wants to take us out without a deal. He wants to be stopped by parliament so he can win a GE then get us out with May ver 1.01 reheated.
I also think this is the plan. Laying 'No Deal' remains IMO a licence to print money. The only way Johnson can No Deal is by winning a GE. But if he wins a GE he will not have to do it. He can Deal.
Labour need to head off this plan by NOT triggering a GE until it has become clear that Johnson has failed to get a Deal for 31/10 and an article 50 is in place under the Benn act. Trigger the GE after that - with Johnson now forced to run on the pure softhead populist No Deal ticket. In this scenario BXP will still take some hard core Leaver votes (since the 31/10 Do or Die has not happened) and the Tories' extremist No Deal position will give them internal candidate and manifesto problems, and will likely turn off droves of moderate centre-right voters.
Labour can squeeze a minority government out of that sponge. Certainly it's their best bet of winning power under Corbyn.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
I'm on my third GP Surgery in four years after the first two collapsed. Last month when I tried to get a home visit for my mum I was bluntly told by her surgery that their four surgery combined practice had 4 full time GPs out of 13 posts. I'm middle class enough to have made them refuse a home visit knowing they would blink first but many people aren't.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
My experience of GP services is considerable different.
I am registered with a busy city centre GP and if there is something pressing, I have never not been seen within 24 hours.
This morning I phoned about a potential case of Shingles and got a call back within 4 hours from a GP who was able to prescribe over the phone and I had the drugs in my hands within 2 hours after that.
The service is clearly patchy - but there are places where it absolutely does still work.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Aw, Isam is even naïve by the low standards of Leavers. He thinks Corbyn is a "remainer"! This is the latest ploy of the Bozo apologists. Try and make out everyone is lying, so Bozo is OK. Pathetic!
How likely is it that Corbyn will table a VNOC on - say - 19th/20th October before Johnson can bring back any Deal to the Commons?
Lol Johnson is practically begging him to do so.
Assuming Boris lost a VONC on 19th/20th, it would mean there would have to be a guarantee of somebody to replace him as PM forthwith. Or he sits out that 14 day period and waits for No Deal to just roll long..... He would not have the confidence of the House to send a letter to the EU requiring an extension. But there is no-one else to send it either. Means it is not his fault, as he has been VONCed.
"He would not have the confidence of the House to send a letter to the EU requiring an extension."
Unless he resigned as prime minister, he would still be prime minister, so whether he had lost the confidence of the House would be irrelevant. He would still be legally obliged to request an extension and accept it if offered.
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
True, we've actually got a paper currently in review showing that seeing the same GP consistently is associated with fewer hospital admissions/A&E visits (in quite a specialist population with relatively high numbers of both, but no reason to think it's not generalisable)
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
He denied, in front of the cameras, that there was any press at the hospital. In front of the cameras!
I remember Blair getting on stage, covered in sweat, convincing an audience that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs. He convinced me too!
Boris is no angel but this idea he is the devil's incarnate is a bit much. I'd suggest a Gove, or Corbyn, Mcdonnell or someone like Owen Patterson would be much more dangerous.
The current lot are always the worst there have ever been, until they are no longer the current lot.
A passsage from the Count of Monte Cristo illustrates this age old failing
“With your tastes, and means of gratifying them,” continued Danglars, “you will exhibit a splendor that must effectually put us poor miserable millionaires quite in the shade. If I mistake not you are an admirer of paintings, at least I judged so from the attention you appeared to be bestowing on mine when I entered the room. If you will permit me, I shall be happy to show you my picture gallery, composed entirely of works by the ancient masters—warranted as such. Not a modern picture among them. I cannot endure the modern school of painting.”
“You are perfectly right in objecting to them, for this one great fault—that they have not yet had time to become old.”
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Cameron was a convincing liar. He convinced himself he knew what he was doing.
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
I think Boris sets a new low benchmark that Blair could only dream of
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
Some of it is due to an aging population. Some of it perhaps due to GPs who want to be paid as though they run businesses when in fact have the safest jobs in the world, with the best gold plated pensions.
There has been a bit of a drop in the GP/population ratio in England.[1] Of course, other factors are important, such as the nature of the population (getting older), other demands on GPs' time (some more admin with the reorganisations - although maybe that is largely handed off to other staff) and potentially picking up slack in other areas. Some areas may have seen much bigger drops, some improvements.
Anecdotally, it's outpatient services that I've seen changes in. My wife needs infrequent outpatient treatment for an ear issue. She used to be able to get appointments within a month or so, that's now extended to four months plus (too long to live with ear pain, we've been paying to go private instead, fortunate to be in a position to be able to do so). That could be symptomatic of wider underfunding or it might be a local issue. We do know nationally that A&E targets are missed more and more and waiting lists are increasing.
I have an outpatient appointment with an Opthalmist every 6 to 9 months. He told me the local Specsavers has better retenal photography equipment than our local clinic and when needed he refers patients there to get the examination done rather than make them wait 3 months and travel 20 + miles each way to the nearest NHS machinery.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Cameron was a convincing liar. He convinced himself he knew what he was doing.
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
I think Boris sets a new low benchmark that Blair could only dream of
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
True, we've actually got a paper currently in review showing that seeing the same GP consistently is associated with fewer hospital admissions/A&E visits (in quite a specialist population with relatively high numbers of both, but no reason to think it's not generalisable)
A family member is deaf - finds it hard to understand and make himself understood. He has to ask for specific GPs when making an appointment, to make sure that the whole thing isn't a waste of time. His practice receptionists are helpful - but I can certainly believe that his health depends in part on this.
I don't know whether anyone listened to the World at One? Alan Johnson was fascinating and damning of corbyn's Brexit policy. This was followed by Harold Wilson's political advisor and it didn't get any better. Then onto China and the purpose of Pandas! Extraordinary. All highly recommended.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Cameron was a convincing liar. He convinced himself he knew what he was doing.
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
I think Boris sets a new low benchmark that Blair could only dream of
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
Cameron and Blair give the impression of having a core political philosophy that they are trying to mould the world to. Sure, they will also bend to the political currents (Blair giving up on the Euro is a good example) but you could always be reasonably clear where they stood on something, and in the end there were things that they weren't willing to bend on that brought them down (Cameron would almost certainly still be PM if he had led the Leave campaign).
Johnson, by contrast, appears to have no guiding political philosophy excepting what is good for Johnson.
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
I doubt it. He screwed up royally in the spring. He failed to provide opposition at a key moment and revived the LD corpse. It’s not going away. Sadly for Corbyn the left vote unhappy with him has somewhere else to go. His previous strategy is dead.
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
True, we've actually got a paper currently in review showing that seeing the same GP consistently is associated with fewer hospital admissions/A&E visits (in quite a specialist population with relatively high numbers of both, but no reason to think it's not generalisable)
A family member is deaf - finds it hard to understand and make himself understood. He has to ask for specific GPs when making an appointment, to make sure that the whole thing isn't a waste of time. His practice receptionists are helpful - but I can certainly believe that his health depends in part on this.
Isn't it blindingly obvious that someone familiar with the patient's previous condition is better able to deal with the patient?
After my father had a stroke I was told the A and E department hadn't been able to diagnose the problem because they didn't know what he was normally like!
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
Cameron and Blair give the impression of having a core political philosophy that they are trying to mould the world to. Sure, they will also bend to the political currents (Blair giving up on the Euro is a good example) but you could always be reasonably clear where they stood on something, and in the end there were things that they weren't willing to bend on that brought them down (Cameron would almost certainly still be PM if he had led the Leave campaign).
Johnson, by contrast, appears to have no guiding political philosophy excepting what is good for Johnson.
You mean that "jolly japes, oops call an ambulance" isn't a political philosophy?
It is a paradox. Johnson is so egregiously dishonest and incompetent that even the lowest information voter can't fail to be aware of it. Yet it doesn't make any difference. Johnson will get a deal, won't get a deal, we leave do or die on October 31. None of this matters and nobody believes any of it anyway. Johnson proves Lincoln's maxim that he can fool some of the people all of the time and if that minority is bigger than any other minority he gets the go ahead to wreak chaos for another five years.
Do you think? I think there are plenty who will know only: - Johnson is now PM - Hes' promised to sort Brexit by the end of the month (yay! don't care how) - He's that nice/affacle/funny/straightforward bloke you seen on the telly on have i got news for you etc - He's not Corbyn, who is apparently very bad (for reasons unknown, but the papers always say so)
An election would show more of him and more of the other options. A televised debate could sink him or save him, depending on his performance - who knows?
Ask the simple question, "How are things going under Johnson?". Surely anyone would say, "It's chaos."
At that point the excuses kick in from certain quarters, not least his own: parliament that wants to stop Brexit; biased judges; chicken Corbyn; Irish PM who doesn't know his place; malign Luxemburgers; Labour activist parents of children in hospitals who dare to answer back; MPs in his own party who got themselves sacked.
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
True, we've actually got a paper currently in review showing that seeing the same GP consistently is associated with fewer hospital admissions/A&E visits (in quite a specialist population with relatively high numbers of both, but no reason to think it's not generalisable)
A family member is deaf - finds it hard to understand and make himself understood. He has to ask for specific GPs when making an appointment, to make sure that the whole thing isn't a waste of time. His practice receptionists are helpful - but I can certainly believe that his health depends in part on this.
Isn't it blindingly obvious that someone familiar with the patient's previous condition is better able to deal with the patient?
After my father had a stroke I was told the A and E department hadn't been able to diagnose the problem because they didn't know what he was normally like!
I take it you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing? But certainly I agree with you.
Johnson is, of course, a liar. But is he a good liar or a bad one? Is a good liar someone who can lie brazenly or lie convincingly? Like Trump, Johnson does the former very well. But, also like Trump, he is useless at the latter. For me, the best liars of he last few year have been Theresa May and John McDonnell.
Don't want to offend but I think you've lost a bit of perspective over Boris. I think you hate him (and Brexit) so much you are overdoing it a bit.
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
Cameron and Blair give the impression of having a core political philosophy that they are trying to mould the world to. Sure, they will also bend to the political currents (Blair giving up on the Euro is a good example) but you could always be reasonably clear where they stood on something, and in the end there were things that they weren't willing to bend on that brought them down (Cameron would almost certainly still be PM if he had led the Leave campaign).
Johnson, by contrast, appears to have no guiding political philosophy excepting what is good for Johnson.
A problem tempered by the fact that about half the time he's too stupid to know what is good for Johnson.
To be fair I can still get a GP appointment on the same day by logging in and booking one online at like 7am. The oldies have to wait until 8:30am to ring reception!
Ye my GP system is a bit weird, you need to log your symptons online and then you get called back with an appointment time but it has worked well enough for me, you get seen the same day provided you can make it to one of the three practices in the group.
If i want to see my GP who is PT itsca three week or more wait...
Do people still ask to see a specific GP these days ? I regard them all as reasonably fungible resource, so long as one qualified bod sees you...
If you have a chronic condition then it's very helpful to see the same GP rather than start from the beginning with a different one. Particularly as they can have very different ideas on what would be good treatment.
True, we've actually got a paper currently in review showing that seeing the same GP consistently is associated with fewer hospital admissions/A&E visits (in quite a specialist population with relatively high numbers of both, but no reason to think it's not generalisable)
A family member is deaf - finds it hard to understand and make himself understood. He has to ask for specific GPs when making an appointment, to make sure that the whole thing isn't a waste of time. His practice receptionists are helpful - but I can certainly believe that his health depends in part on this.
Isn't it blindingly obvious that someone familiar with the patient's previous condition is better able to deal with the patient?
After my father had a stroke I was told the A and E department hadn't been able to diagnose the problem because they didn't know what he was normally like!
I take it you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing? But certainly I agree with you.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
I'm on my third GP Surgery in four years after the first two collapsed. Last month when I tried to get a home visit for my mum I was bluntly told by her surgery that their four surgery combined practice had 4 full time GPs out of 13 posts. I'm middle class enough to have made them refuse a home visit knowing they would blink first but many people aren't.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
My experience of GP services is considerable different.
I am registered with a busy city centre GP and if there is something pressing, I have never not been seen within 24 hours.
This morning I phoned about a potential case of Shingles and got a call back within 4 hours from a GP who was able to prescribe over the phone and I had the drugs in my hands within 2 hours after that.
The service is clearly patchy - but there are places where it absolutely does still work.
This is a great example of the acute/chronic split mentioned by DecrepitJohnL at 4:37pm. I would agree that acute services in the NHS are generally pretty good - with the exception of people who turn up to A&E without a life-threatening condition.
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
I doubt it. He screwed up royally in the spring. He failed to provide opposition at a key moment and revived the LD corpse. It’s not going away. Sadly for Corbyn the left vote unhappy with him has somewhere else to go. His previous strategy is dead.
I cannot see them switching to the 'Tories Little Helpers' when reminded of their past misdeeds.
Capitalism is broken, and my view is that it's worth fixing. But if we fail, someone else will sweep it away. And god knows what that will look like but I'll wager it won't be a nice process.
Thanks for sharing - absolutely agree, Martin Wolf is great and that article really hits the nail on the head.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
I'm on my third GP Surgery in four years after the first two collapsed. Last month when I tried to get a home visit for my mum I was bluntly told by her surgery that their four surgery combined practice had 4 full time GPs out of 13 posts. I'm middle class enough to have made them refuse a home visit knowing they would blink first but many people aren't.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
My experience of GP services is considerable different.
I am registered with a busy city centre GP and if there is something pressing, I have never not been seen within 24 hours.
This morning I phoned about a potential case of Shingles and got a call back within 4 hours from a GP who was able to prescribe over the phone and I had the drugs in my hands within 2 hours after that.
The service is clearly patchy - but there are places where it absolutely does still work.
This is a great example of the acute/chronic split mentioned by DecrepitJohnL at 4:37pm. I would agree that acute services in the NHS are generally pretty good - with the exception of people who turn up to A&E without a life-threatening condition.
Chronic services, not so much.
I would be seeing my GP on a regular basis for a chronic condition - but I am presently under the care of a long term medical trial for that (3 years and counting) and so I get seen by 2 nurses and 1 doctor every fortnight. But when I did need my surgery for that, again, I never had an issue.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
I've just wasted a lovely sunny afternoon watching "Ad Astra". Utter crap. I muttered that phrase to myself at least seventeen times during the course of the film. I should have walked out.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
And the precedent the government offers for such a proposition is from 1930. One would hope our constitutional understanding has evolved a little since then.
I've just wasted a lovely sunny afternoon watching "Ad Astra". Utter crap. I muttered that phrase to myself at least seventeen times during the course of the film. I should have walked out.
I did so last time I went to the cinema... "Vice" - completely horrendous
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
I'm on my third GP Surgery in four years after the first two collapsed. Last month when I tried to get a home visit for my mum I was bluntly told by her surgery that their four surgery combined practice had 4 full time GPs out of 13 posts. I'm middle class enough to have made them refuse a home visit knowing they would blink first but many people aren't.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
My experience of GP services is considerable different.
I am registered with a busy city centre GP and if there is something pressing, I have never not been seen within 24 hours.
This morning I phoned about a potential case of Shingles and got a call back within 4 hours from a GP who was able to prescribe over the phone and I had the drugs in my hands within 2 hours after that.
The service is clearly patchy - but there are places where it absolutely does still work.
This is a great example of the acute/chronic split mentioned by DecrepitJohnL at 4:37pm. I would agree that acute services in the NHS are generally pretty good - with the exception of people who turn up to A&E without a life-threatening condition...
I think that depends greatly on where you live, and the nature or complexity of your condition. One need only to look at the details of hospital mortality figures - or to have personal dealings with more than one hospital - to know that.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
Maybe that's something to do with the population having increased from 57 million to 67 million over that time, whereas in the 1980s and early/mid 1990s it hardly increased at all by comparison.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
Clearly it could decide that in principle, but I think what she's saying is that in this particular case it's unlikely - "given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently."
I'm not sure how much sense that makes, though. I wouldn't have thought the question of justiciability was just a "yes/no" decision. I suppose that if it is justiciable, there is also the question of what criteria the court has to apply.
"Robert Kilroy-Silk, 77, lives in Warleigh House – a Grade II* listed gothic manor beside the River Tavy – outside the village of Tamerton Foliot. To reach his house you travel on an unpaved lane through a forest, with a sheer drop into the river on one side. It felt about as remote from Westminster as one could be in England, and I couldn’t help but imagine Kilroy as a sort of Byronic exile"
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
I doubt it. He screwed up royally in the spring. He failed to provide opposition at a key moment and revived the LD corpse. It’s not going away. Sadly for Corbyn the left vote unhappy with him has somewhere else to go. His previous strategy is dead.
The appraisal of Alan Johnson is particularly astute (why did he never become leader?) It boils down to a poor decision not thought through. I don't agree with his solution-go with May's deal-but at least he's able to analyse the political implications of the various alternatives and one chosen by Jeremy is political suicide.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
I really can't fathom the mentality of someone who decides the create a political. 'moment' when his daughter is in a high dependency unit.
He found himself inside a political moment which someone else had created. Unless you think he arranged the whole thing?
I don't understand what you mean.
Someone made the decision to bring the PM and the media to that particular bed and that parent to make a political 'moment'. I can't see that it was that parent.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
And the precedent the government offers for such a proposition is from 1930. One would hope our constitutional understanding has evolved a little since then.
In fairness, the Scottish judges cited law from 1916 and 1689.
Wow what I find incredible are the sub-breaks for the two candidates to be PM with other parties voters.
Johnson has a 93% unfavourable with Lib Dem voters - hardly shocking, he won't be appealing to them. But remarkably Corbyn also has a 74% unfavourable including a 44% very unfavourable with Lib Dems. That's going to be making a mountain for Corbyn to appeal to Lib Dems who are going to view it as "a pox on both your houses".
But look at the sub-break for Brexit Party voters. 93% unfavourable [inc. 83% very unfavourable] for Corbyn and 73% favourable for Johnson.
Those sub-breaks if true - and they're well outside of any margin for error - suggests a Johnson-inspired/Corbyn-opposing squeeze of the Brexit Party is entirely plausible.
However a Corbyn-inspired/Johnson-opposing squeeze of the Lib Dems [as occurred in 2017] is looking quite unlikely.
So in summary, you think LDs who have a 93% unfavourable rating of Johnson wont oppose him? Perhaps if Tories/Labour had equal shots at govt you might be close, but given its either hung parliament or Tory majority (with a perception right or wrong from LD voters that also means no deal crashout) it seems far more likely they will vote anti Tory where the LDs cant win.
I think Philip's point is simply that the, because Johnson is so well regarded by BXP voters, that he has a good chance of squeezing them, particularly in the most marginal of seats.
And Labour less chance of squeezing the Lib Dems. He has a very good point (& thanks, Philip, for noting it) - and it will be interesting to see if those figures change at all.
LD voters wont see it as Labour squeezing them, most will see it as voting anti Brexit, anti Johnson. LD activists might be concerned about their national vote share being squeezed but voters have different priorities.
It'd be a lot easier I would imagine for LD voters to vote Labour at an election if they didn't [by 73%] have an unfavourable view of Corbyn too. 44% say they have a "very unfavourable" view of Corbyn. Makes it more likely IMHO that they'll stick to their beliefs and vote "bollocks to Brexit" Lib Dems rather than tactically.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
I've just wasted a lovely sunny afternoon watching "Ad Astra". Utter crap. I muttered that phrase to myself at least seventeen times during the course of the film. I should have walked out.
I should have been suspicious when the first I had even heard of the movie was a trailer a few weeks ago.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
And the precedent the government offers for such a proposition is from 1930. One would hope our constitutional understanding has evolved a little since then.
Haven't the other side offered even older precedents?
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
From a position of ignorance and FWIW, I doubt Supreme Court judges would see it as their job to set a warning limit. They interpret the law. The law either allows governments to prorogate parliament when they feel like it. Or they can't, in which case this prorogation probably fails as the government failed to put up a justification for it. If parliament doesn't like the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court judges, it can change it, but this isn't the job of the judges.
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
You think the Lib Dems will collapse back to single figures?
Not that far, but given the motivation to stop Brexit even though the Labour position will take longer I can easily see people reluctantly returning to Labour to stop a Tory holding on or winning a seat from Labour.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant.
So far, I have seen nothing (and that includes the judgement of the Court of Sesssions) to make me think it isn't. I've seen plenty to indicate it *shouldn't* be lawful, but that is a matter for politicians to sort out and not judges. When you get judges trying to make laws you get troubling disasters like the privacy rulings of David Eady.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
And the precedent the government offers for such a proposition is from 1930. One would hope our constitutional understanding has evolved a little since then.
In fairness, the Scottish judges cited law from 1916 and 1689.
There is that, of course. The SC is going to have to decide which are the constitutional principles which have stood the test of time, and which merely the exigencies or passing political accommodations of their era.
"Robert Kilroy-Silk, 77, lives in Warleigh House – a Grade II* listed gothic manor beside the River Tavy – outside the village of Tamerton Foliot. To reach his house you travel on an unpaved lane through a forest, with a sheer drop into the river on one side. It felt about as remote from Westminster as one could be in England, and I couldn’t help but imagine Kilroy as a sort of Byronic exile"
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
A much more sensible course of action would be to turn them into private limited companies, even if they are still owned by charitable foundations (and that is the way they are trending anyway and most of the smaller ones already are).
Incidentally that would also offer stronger rules on governance and financial oversight which can be something of a weakness in private charitable schools, as I found helping to deal with a series of messes via my union last year.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant...
The first question is whether the prorogation prerogative is justiciable at all. If it is, the the reasons for this particular prorogation being lawful or not become quite important.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
From a position of ignorance and FWIW, I doubt Supreme Court judges would see it as their job to set a warning limit. They interpret the law. The law either allows governments to prorogate parliament when they feel like it. Or they can't, in which case this prorogation probably fails as the government failed to put up a justification for it. If parliament doesn't like the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court judges, it can change it, but this isn't the job of the judges.
That's the tricky issue for me. I've found those against the prorogation more compelling and a lot of what they say feels like it should be the case, that the government shouldn't be allowed to just do certain things...but I cannot quite shake the feeling that just wanting that to be true does not make it so. Obviously the very learned lawyers and indeed the judges at the Court of Session believe the law backs up the view that the government cannot behave as it has done, but some of the external commentary seems to rely on 'this cannot be right', when it might not be right, but it might well be what the law states. Parliament will be back at some point, hopefully soon, and what bet putting in clearer rules on prorogation gets on the agenda? (Whether they make it clearer is another matter). Obviously that might be critical for the Brexit period if Boris just extends prorogation or something if he is allowed to, but parliament will be back and can set rules for these things.
"Robert Kilroy-Silk, 77, lives in Warleigh House – a Grade II* listed gothic manor beside the River Tavy – outside the village of Tamerton Foliot. To reach his house you travel on an unpaved lane through a forest, with a sheer drop into the river on one side. It felt about as remote from Westminster as one could be in England, and I couldn’t help but imagine Kilroy as a sort of Byronic exile"
Dammit! Rumbled.
You're Kilroy?
I'm amazed. I would never have believed you were capable of typing given your TV performances.
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
Clearly it could decide that in principle, but I think what she's saying is that in this particular case it's unlikely - "given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently."
I'm not sure how much sense that makes, though. I wouldn't have thought the question of justiciability was just a "yes/no" decision. I suppose that if it is justiciable, there is also the question of what criteria the court has to apply.
The justiciable has to be yes or no . Otherwise you end up in a legal mess . They are acutely aware that to say it isn’t means you give Carte Blanche for any future PM to effectively shut down parliament whenever they like.
I would be shocked if they don’t say it’s justiciable however in terms of the current case , hard to say in terms of lawful.
One thing we mustn’t forget this isn’t a criminal case , so they don’t need anything like beyond reasonable doubt and as well as this regardless of the arguments made by the different QCs they will pay a lot of attention to the written arguments .
Conclusion of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's view, posted at the weekend:
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
From a position of ignorance and FWIW, I doubt Supreme Court judges would see it as their job to set a warning limit. They interpret the law. The law either allows governments to prorogate parliament when they feel like it. Or they can't, in which case this prorogation probably fails as the government failed to put up a justification for it. If parliament doesn't like the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court judges, it can change it, but this isn't the job of the judges.
That's the tricky issue for me. I've found those against the prorogation more compelling and a lot of what they say feels like it should be the case, that the government shouldn't be allowed to just do certain things...but I cannot quite shake the feeling that just wanting that to be true does not make it so. Obviously the very learned lawyers and indeed the judges at the Court of Session believe the law backs up the view that the government cannot behave as it has done, but some of the external commentary seems to rely on 'this cannot be right', when it might not be right, but it might well be what the law states. Parliament will be back at some point, hopefully soon, and what bet putting in clearer rules on prorogation gets on the agenda? (Whether they make it clearer is another matter). Obviously that might be critical for the Brexit period if Boris just extends prorogation or something if he is allowed to, but parliament will be back and can set rules for these things.
What parliament may do in the future can't have any bearing on the legality of a prorogation in the past, though.
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
I doubt it. He screwed up royally in the spring. He failed to provide opposition at a key moment and revived the LD corpse. It’s not going away. Sadly for Corbyn the left vote unhappy with him has somewhere else to go. His previous strategy is dead.
I cannot see them switching to the 'Tories Little Helpers' when reminded of their past misdeeds.
Wishful thinking. It will have rsome esonance with those that would vote for Corbyn anyway, but as Mike's analysis points out, Swinson has a higher approval rating than Corbyn amongst 2017 Labour voters already.
I also think that for many remainers and Blairite Labour voters the Brexit issue and Corbyn's leadership of the party will weigh more heavily than the LDs record in coalition. Politics moves on quite quickly.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant.
.
Again, the issue for me is proroguing for a QS definitely is legitimate, so if it was 20% for that reason and 80% for political advantage re Brexit (which we know was the real reason) does that mean he cannot prorogue? Or only a shorter prorogration is permissable? What if they say his reason was not legimate this time, and he immediately asks for another swearing on the record it is for a QS alone?
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
Did you actually watch (and listen to) the clip? Whatever the state of the NHS, what on earth possessed Boris to deny the press was there?
Exraordinary wasn't it? He seems to have no regard for truth. He doesn't even blush!
That is what I mean when I call him a reflexive liar.
I don’t think any of it is considered; he just blurts out the first thing that comes into his mind, irrespective of its relation to reality. The guiding principle is that he can’t admit anything which might show him in a poor light.
"Robert Kilroy-Silk, 77, lives in Warleigh House – a Grade II* listed gothic manor beside the River Tavy – outside the village of Tamerton Foliot. To reach his house you travel on an unpaved lane through a forest, with a sheer drop into the river on one side. It felt about as remote from Westminster as one could be in England, and I couldn’t help but imagine Kilroy as a sort of Byronic exile"
Dammit! Rumbled.
You're Kilroy?
I'm amazed. I would never have believed you were capable of typing given your TV performances.
We do have evidence of a certain facility in adopting different personas, so it’s not impossible.
I've just wasted a lovely sunny afternoon watching "Ad Astra". Utter crap. I muttered that phrase to myself at least seventeen times during the course of the film. I should have walked out.
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
Clearly it could decide that in principle, but I think what she's saying is that in this particular case it's unlikely - "given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently."
I'm not sure how much sense that makes, though. I wouldn't have thought the question of justiciability was just a "yes/no" decision. I suppose that if it is justiciable, there is also the question of what criteria the court has to apply.
The justiciable has to be yes or no . Otherwise you end up in a legal mess . They are acutely aware that to say it isn’t means you give Carte Blanche for any future PM to effectively shut down parliament whenever they like.
I would be shocked if they don’t say it’s justiciable however in terms of the current case , hard to say in terms of lawful.
One thing we mustn’t forget this isn’t a criminal case , so they don’t need anything like beyond reasonable doubt and as well as this regardless of the arguments made by the different QCs they will pay a lot of attention to the written arguments .
What I'm getting at is that justiciable could be a "no," but if it's a "yes" then it has to be decided on what basis. It could be that the court decides it's justiciable, but that the criteria applied by the Court of Session weren't appropriate. In that case their reasoning could be "tight" but misguided.
Comments
All lying though has to be judged by the benchmark that is Tony Blair.
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1174342182939111425?s=20
https://twitter.com/MrBrexitLuke/status/1168489502043791360?s=20
Boris is just another one of those malleable, force of nature type politicians who says different things to please different crowds, like a Blair or Cameron.
He is largely responsible for the Brexit mess and finds himself in an extraordinarily difficult (insurmountable, perhaps?) political situation, but I suspect he'd be no more sinister or deceitful or dangerous than any other mainstream UK politician, if the landscape was more benign.
“The audience are on there every week cheering and booing and it’s become like the Coliseum,” he says. ...
"There’s definitely the idea that if they can put something that’s been said on there on social media ... they will broaden [the show’s] appeal… I don’t see how that helps the debate.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/interviews/billy-bragg-interview-cant-watch-question-time-like-thecoliseum/
AIUI, the argument is that budgets, while rising, *aren't keeping pace* with healthcare inflation, demand is rising hugely, and politicians are still promising everyone the moon on a stick, leaving CCGs/providers to ration.. either openly by removing certain treatments from the menu, or less openly by just doing everything a bit shit (in the technical parlance).
The same happens in schools where "per pupil funding to schools" is protected or increased year on year, but all that nasty "town hall bureaucracy" (er... support for schools, funding for SEN kids etc) is cut, and they have to pay for that out of the per-pupil grant.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1173640241334411271
Anecdotally, it's outpatient services that I've seen changes in. My wife needs infrequent outpatient treatment for an ear issue. She used to be able to get appointments within a month or so, that's now extended to four months plus (too long to live with ear pain, we've been paying to go private instead, fortunate to be in a position to be able to do so). That could be symptomatic of wider underfunding or it might be a local issue. We do know nationally that A&E targets are missed more and more and waiting lists are increasing.
[1] https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/number-of-people-per-gp-nurse-and-medical-or-dental-staff-over-time
https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77
Capitalism is broken, and my view is that it's worth fixing. But if we fail, someone else will sweep it away. And god knows what that will look like but I'll wager it won't be a nice process.
This weeks front page of the local rag is the routine NHS horror story. This time that drug related deaths in 16 to 18 are double those in 14 to 16 and so on and so on.
While the reasons are complex and many the biggest is the post crash switch to below health inflation annual budget increases.
Boris is no angel but this idea he is the devil's incarnate is a bit much. I'd suggest a Gove, or Corbyn, Mcdonnell or someone like Owen Patterson would be much more dangerous.
- Johnson is now PM
- Hes' promised to sort Brexit by the end of the month (yay! don't care how)
- He's that nice/affacle/funny/straightforward bloke you seen on the telly on have i got news for you etc
- He's not Corbyn, who is apparently very bad (for reasons unknown, but the papers always say so)
An election would show more of him and more of the other options. A televised debate could sink him or save him, depending on his performance - who knows?
This leads to the absurdity of Tony Blair on live television being mystified at audience complaints that mandating 2-day appointments was harming patients who needed to come back in a week, a fortnight, or nine months after conception!
Labour need to head off this plan by NOT triggering a GE until it has become clear that Johnson has failed to get a Deal for 31/10 and an article 50 is in place under the Benn act. Trigger the GE after that - with Johnson now forced to run on the pure softhead populist No Deal ticket. In this scenario BXP will still take some hard core Leaver votes (since the 31/10 Do or Die has not happened) and the Tories' extremist No Deal position will give them internal candidate and manifesto problems, and will likely turn off droves of moderate centre-right voters.
Labour can squeeze a minority government out of that sponge. Certainly it's their best bet of winning power under Corbyn.
I am registered with a busy city centre GP and if there is something pressing, I have never not been seen within 24 hours.
This morning I phoned about a potential case of Shingles and got a call back within 4 hours from a GP who was able to prescribe over the phone and I had the drugs in my hands within 2 hours after that.
The service is clearly patchy - but there are places where it absolutely does still work.
This is the latest ploy of the Bozo apologists. Try and make out everyone is lying, so Bozo is OK. Pathetic!
Unless he resigned as prime minister, he would still be prime minister, so whether he had lost the confidence of the House would be irrelevant. He would still be legally obliged to request an extension and accept it if offered.
A passsage from the Count of Monte Cristo illustrates this age old failing
“With your tastes, and means of gratifying them,” continued Danglars, “you will exhibit a splendor that must effectually put us poor miserable millionaires quite in the shade. If I mistake not you are an admirer of paintings, at least I judged so from the attention you appeared to be bestowing on mine when I entered the room. If you will permit me, I shall be happy to show you my picture gallery, composed entirely of works by the ancient masters—warranted as such. Not a modern picture among them. I cannot endure the modern school of painting.”
“You are perfectly right in objecting to them, for this one great fault—that they have not yet had time to become old.”
https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/180/the-count-of-monte-cristo/3315/chapter-46-unlimited-credit/
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0008j71
Johnson, by contrast, appears to have no guiding political philosophy excepting what is good for Johnson.
After my father had a stroke I was told the A and E department hadn't been able to diagnose the problem because they didn't know what he was normally like!
At that point the excuses kick in from certain quarters, not least his own: parliament that wants to stop Brexit; biased judges; chicken Corbyn; Irish PM who doesn't know his place; malign Luxemburgers; Labour activist parents of children in hospitals who dare to answer back; MPs in his own party who got themselves sacked.
Chronic services, not so much.
"Further, the usual follow up to a claim that a matter is political, and not for the courts, is to require it be dealt with by political institutions, not courts. This will not work in this case because it is in the very nature of prorogation that Parliament has been suspended or silenced. Britain’s foremost political institution cannot act here. The British Constitution rests on a balance of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, and if Parliament is suppressed, then judicial intervention is essential, not activist.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely to me that the Supreme Court might find the case justiciable, but determine there had in fact been no unlawful behaviour by the government. This would require the Supreme Court to find differently from the Court of Session on the facts, but, given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently. So, if the Court of Session is not followed, it must surely be on the basis of a finding of non-justiciability. But with Parliament suspended, if the courts were to exclude themselves, what then of the rule of law? What is then to stop prorogation of Parliament for a much longer period?"
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/challenging-prorogation-court-of-session/
One would hope our constitutional understanding has evolved a little since then.
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
One need only to look at the details of hospital mortality figures - or to have personal dealings with more than one hospital - to know that.
I'm not sure how much sense that makes, though. I wouldn't have thought the question of justiciability was just a "yes/no" decision. I suppose that if it is justiciable, there is also the question of what criteria the court has to apply.
"Robert Kilroy-Silk, 77, lives in Warleigh House – a Grade II* listed gothic manor beside the River Tavy – outside the village of Tamerton Foliot. To reach his house you travel on an unpaved lane through a forest, with a sheer drop into the river on one side. It felt about as remote from Westminster as one could be in England, and I couldn’t help but imagine Kilroy as a sort of Byronic exile"
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
So far, I have seen nothing (and that includes the judgement of the Court of Sesssions) to make me think it isn't. I've seen plenty to indicate it *shouldn't* be lawful, but that is a matter for politicians to sort out and not judges. When you get judges trying to make laws you get troubling disasters like the privacy rulings of David Eady.
The SC is going to have to decide which are the constitutional principles which have stood the test of time, and which merely the exigencies or passing political accommodations of their era.
Incidentally that would also offer stronger rules on governance and financial oversight which can be something of a weakness in private charitable schools, as I found helping to deal with a series of messes via my union last year.
If it is, the the reasons for this particular prorogation being lawful or not become quite important.
I'm amazed. I would never have believed you were capable of typing given your TV performances.
I would be shocked if they don’t say it’s justiciable however in terms of the current case , hard to say in terms of lawful.
One thing we mustn’t forget this isn’t a criminal case , so they don’t need anything like beyond reasonable doubt and as well as this regardless of the arguments made by the different QCs they will pay a lot of attention to the written arguments .
I also think that for many remainers and Blairite Labour voters the Brexit issue and Corbyn's leadership of the party will weigh more heavily than the LDs record in coalition. Politics moves on quite quickly.
I don’t think any of it is considered; he just blurts out the first thing that comes into his mind, irrespective of its relation to reality. The guiding principle is that he can’t admit anything which might show him in a poor light.