Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI has the LDs at a post-GE2010 high with a big increa

1356

Comments

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
    also unlikely

    closing a Parliament with little credibility could be a plus
    It'll follow every candidate for the Tories. Leaflets will basically write themselves. "Why vote for an MP who's happy to be shut out of parliament?"
    If you don't think this will do damage in the eyes of the moderate majority of the country, then you might be mistaking the politically entrenched geeks on here as normal. We aren't normal on here. This stuff will leave a stink around the Tories unless they nail it to Boris personally and eject him.
    and on the next leaflet it will say why vote for a woman who wants to ignore democracy and 17.4 million votes.

    Partisan nutters can only see the fault in their enemies and never their own eye watering beams.

    Both sides have lost the plot becase they are all mixed up between party shenanigans and the sourest of grapes.
  • Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?

    Is there anything in this world worse than Morris Dancing?
    The traditional answer to that is incest.
    Tbf I think the original quote put them pretty much on a par.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,592
    edited September 2019
    philiph said:

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28


    LibDems have a really interesting choice to make.

    Do they want to replace Labour as the preeminent Left Centre Left force in UK?

    If the answer is yes the first action they have to take is to gain the maximum vote share and seat tally.

    This means it is in the interests of the LibDems for Labour, SNP, Plaid, Tories to suffer losses and obviously to gain as many as possible themselves.

    After the next election if the seat tally is LibDem 80 Labour 160, Labour will remain the party of the Left by default. The LibDems have to reduce the gap between the parties to the greatest extent possible. If Labour are not in power they will then change leader and there is a strong possibility that a new Labour leader would oversee the decline of the LibDems to another period of irrelevance.

    They need grow into a major party to take on and defeat Labour. A major party will not encourage voters or supporters to vote for the party they wish to replace (Labour) in the national Parliament, This in the long term should be more important to them than beating the Tory party at the next election. However they will try to gain ex Labour supporters to vote for them to replace Tory MPs whilst not lending voters to Labour for the same purpose.

    If the LibDems decide that Revoke is the be all and end all, then tactical voting may well get them there between Labour and LibDems. It will leave Labour with more seats, maybe a C&S agreement, and in a perfect position to squash the resurgence out of the LibDems.

    A real dilemma. Revoke or the second chance in 20 years (after 2010 was the other) to replace Labour for the long term. I don't think they can achieve both.
    I think that is painting a false choice. The biggest problem the LibDems have is the dispersal of their support such that, even when they come close to (or even overhaul, according to the models) Labour, as in 1983, they still fall very short in terms of seats.

    Campaigning against Brexit offers the prospect of building a geographically concentrated base of support amongst the educated working age middle classes of London and much of the South East. Taking a clear position on Brexit - as well as aligning very well with the party’s historic mission (having advocated joining from the very formation of the EEC) - offers the best prospect of turning extra votes into extra seats.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited September 2019

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    I was thinking about this the other day.

    Let's imagine that the whole Brexit thing hit a complete stalemate. Boris could stay in power until May 2022 claiming there is no deal that will get through parliament that can feasibly satisfy the EU. It wouldn't look great for him but it wouldn't be great for Corbyn and the others either.

    If Cummings can come up with ways to fill those three years with ruses and phoney wars that show Boris trying to fight the establishment, parliament keep blocking deals and the EU keep issuing extensions... then I guess it is a scenario that could happen.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?

    Is there anything in this world worse than Morris Dancing?
    that's got to be a rhetorical yes
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Fenster said:

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    I was thinking about this the other day.

    Let's imagine that the whole Brexit thing hit a complete stalemate. Boris could stay in power until May 2022 claiming there is no deal that will get through parliament that can feasibly satisfy the EU. It wouldn't look great for him but it wouldn't be great for Corbyn and the others either.

    If Cummings can come up with ways to fill those three years with ruses and phoney wars that show Boris trying to fight the establishment, parliament keep blocking deals and the EU keep issuing extensions... then I guess it is a scenario that could happen.
    The opposition parties will call a GE as soon as Oct 31st passes.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Gabs2 said:

    Fenster said:

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    I was thinking about this the other day.

    Let's imagine that the whole Brexit thing hit a complete stalemate. Boris could stay in power until May 2022 claiming there is no deal that will get through parliament that can feasibly satisfy the EU. It wouldn't look great for him but it wouldn't be great for Corbyn and the others either.

    If Cummings can come up with ways to fill those three years with ruses and phoney wars that show Boris trying to fight the establishment, parliament keep blocking deals and the EU keep issuing extensions... then I guess it is a scenario that could happen.
    The opposition parties will call a GE as soon as Oct 31st passes.
    Maybe
  • Noo said:

    Telegraph journo is /deeply/ unimpressed with HMG today:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174624712288284672

    True to form for Peter Foster. It's a surprise he works for the Telegraph he is always a strong Europhile who is horrified at anything the government might do that suggests any form of actual Brexit. See the horror at Canada proposal in that Tweet. A Canadian style deal has been the logical outcome all along but nevermind let's just be horrified instead when the government seeks to honour its commitments.
  • RobD said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    I’m probably being dumb, but isn’t it up to the judges? Why should the remedy be decided by the claimant?
    Firstly, the primary duty of the barrister is to assist the Court in the administration of justice. They are instructed by the defendant and claimant so of course focus on points favouring the ultimate client, but that isn't actually their overriding duty.

    Secondly, this is a pretty common question in court where the remedy isn't obvious (as it would be when the claimant is clearly asking for damages, say). In constitutional matters, the remedy isn't quite so obvious. That doesn't mean the claimant is writing their own remedy - judges decide but, as ever, barristers provide many (though not all) of the arguments.

    I'm slightly less inclined to see this as a sign the claimant has won than Dinah Rose QC - I see the point (why ask if your mind hasn't turned beyond the right outcome to what to do about it?) But there are eleven judges on this one, and it would strike me as a strange question NOT to ask unless you were really sure the claimant's case was totally without merit (which it plainly isn't, even if they end up losing).
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Noo said:

    Byronic said:

    Can someone kindly explain to me, how parliament returning benefits the Remain cause, unless parliament is now resolved on some alternative course, like a referendum? I don't think they are, so why's this so important?

    It's hot and I can't work it out.

    Benefitting one side or the other isn't really the point. Perhaps it won't benefit either side. It's just, you know, protecting our democratic process.
    Yet Remainers are wetting themselves at the possibility.

    This feels, to me, like quite a minor skirmish in a war currently being fought elsewhere.

    OK, ta-ra.
    Well, if the SC finds for the claimants it damages the Leaver PM. This is being treated, wrongly in my view, as a proxy for remain / leave. Kudos to the remainers who have argued against this case and the leavers who have argued for it, for they are seeing past the Brexit angle and into the heart of the matter.

    As a remainer who would love to see this shambles of a government further damaged, I've been trying to keep my comments about the case to a minimum, because I'd way off being objective or even knowledgeable about this.
    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)
    Bunter? Are you talking about Boris?
    It damages him because he's forever the PM who illegally shut down parliament. That'll follow him on the campaign trail and long into his retirement.
    also unlikely

    closing a Parliament with little credibility could be a plus
    It'll follow every candidate for the Tories. Leaflets will basically write themselves. "Why vote for an MP who's happy to be shut out of parliament?"
    If you don't think this will do damage in the eyes of the moderate majority of the country, then you might be mistaking the politically entrenched geeks on here as normal. We aren't normal on here. This stuff will leave a stink around the Tories unless they nail it to Boris personally and eject him.
    and on the next leaflet it will say why vote for a woman who wants to ignore democracy and 17.4 million votes.

    Partisan nutters can only see the fault in their enemies and never their own eye watering beams.

    Both sides have lost the plot becase they are all mixed up between party shenanigans and the sourest of grapes.
    Well that's a separate issue, which has been much discussed.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Gabs2 said:

    Fenster said:

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    I was thinking about this the other day.

    Let's imagine that the whole Brexit thing hit a complete stalemate. Boris could stay in power until May 2022 claiming there is no deal that will get through parliament that can feasibly satisfy the EU. It wouldn't look great for him but it wouldn't be great for Corbyn and the others either.

    If Cummings can come up with ways to fill those three years with ruses and phoney wars that show Boris trying to fight the establishment, parliament keep blocking deals and the EU keep issuing extensions... then I guess it is a scenario that could happen.
    The opposition parties will call a GE as soon as Oct 31st passes.
    Really? Given the polls and Corbyn's sit-on-the-fence Brexit positioning? My guess is they'll want Boris to suffer as long as possible.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    TGOHF said:

    If the judges are going to run the country

    Wilfully ignorant and prematurely bitter.
  • Mr. Eagles, morris dancers, racist?

    Piffle and tosh! We embraced Moorish dancing, like good, open-hearted, lace-loving men ought to! What is more harmonious than men waving their wiffle sticks for the delight of the crowds?

    Is there anything in this world worse than Morris Dancing?
    The traditional answer to that is incest.
    Isn't the quote "try anything once except incest and Morris dancing"? No indication there that the former is worse than the latter - if forced to choose between the two, it's a bind.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Telegraph journo is /deeply/ unimpressed with HMG today:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174624712288284672

    True to form for Peter Foster. It's a surprise he works for the Telegraph he is always a strong Europhile who is horrified at anything the government might do that suggests any form of actual Brexit. See the horror at Canada proposal in that Tweet. A Canadian style deal has been the logical outcome all along but nevermind let's just be horrified instead when the government seeks to honour its commitments.
    Are you redefining "logical" to mean your preference?
  • I think for Joe Public, this Court case is like a spaceship landing at Lord's in the middle of a test match. It is so far beyond the reality of normal life that is simply Someone Else's Problem.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited September 2019
    A new video has emerged of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, wearing "blackface", a day after he admitted such behaviour was racist.

    BBC News - Justin Trudeau: Third instance of Canada PM in racist attire
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49758613
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Fenster said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Fenster said:

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    I was thinking about this the other day.

    Let's imagine that the whole Brexit thing hit a complete stalemate. Boris could stay in power until May 2022 claiming there is no deal that will get through parliament that can feasibly satisfy the EU. It wouldn't look great for him but it wouldn't be great for Corbyn and the others either.

    If Cummings can come up with ways to fill those three years with ruses and phoney wars that show Boris trying to fight the establishment, parliament keep blocking deals and the EU keep issuing extensions... then I guess it is a scenario that could happen.
    The opposition parties will call a GE as soon as Oct 31st passes.
    Really? Given the polls and Corbyn's sit-on-the-fence Brexit positioning? My guess is they'll want Boris to suffer as long as possible.
    That will be interesting if they have voted down Boris’s deal by that point.

    That opportunity looks more likely each day.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,946

    philiph said:

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    I wonder if that's all ex-Greens, or if there are some ex-Conservative Remainers in there too.
    So 28% of Remainers are currently NOT supporting either LD or Labour. That is 28% of 48% = 13.5%. SNP = 45, PC = 1%, Green 8.5% ? Some will presumably be Tories still.
    It is going to be a great tactical tsunami. There will be websites telling Remainers who to back in which constituency.


    LibDems have a really interesting choice to make.

    Do they want to replace Labour as the preeminent Left Centre Left force in UK?

    If the answer is yes the first action they have to take is to gain the maximum vote share and seat tally.

    This means it is in the interests of the LibDems for Labour, SNP, Plaid, Tories to suffer losses and obviously to gain as many as possible themselves.

    After the next election if the seat tally is LibDem 80 Labour 160, Labour will remain the party of the Left by default. The LibDems have to reduce the gap between the parties to the greatest extent possible. If Labour are not in power they will then change leader and there is a strong possibility that a new Labour leader would oversee the decline of the LibDems to another period of irrelevance.

    They need grow into a major party to take on and defeat Labour. A major party will not encourage voters or supporters to vote for the party they wish to replace (Labour) in the national Parliament, This in the long term should be more important to them than beating the Tory party at the next election. However they will try to gain ex Labour supporters to vote for them to replace Tory MPs whilst not lending voters to Labour for the same purpose.

    If the LibDems decide that Revoke is the be all and end all, then tactical voting may well get them there between Labour and LibDems. It will leave Labour with more seats, maybe a C&S agreement, and in a perfect position to squash the resurgence out of the LibDems.

    A real dilemma. Revoke or the second chance in 20 years (after 2010 was the other) to replace Labour for the long term. I don't think they can achieve both.
    They're not centre-left. Under Swinson or Davey, they're a Centre Party and so are roughly as close to centre-right Tories such as Grieve or Clarke as to centre-left SDP-type Labour MPs like Watson or Cooper.

    Their USP used to be that they believed in civil liberties. Thatcher and Blair didn't appear to believe in them and in particular Blair wanted to abolish jury trial.
    Swinson is hard right
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    Good news for UKIP sellers...

    Ukip leader Richard Braine is boycotting his OWN party conference because it has only sold 450 ticket after Brexiteer members flocked to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,369
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    The papers tried that after the Miller case and the ‘worst’ they could come up with that one of the justices was a gay former Olympic fencer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited September 2019
    isam said:
    And in this century. I have more sympathy when it was when somebody was a teenager in the 70s, when people did that in tv...but 2001 as a 29 year old, you have to be an absolute moron to think that it ok.

    Also, like bad tweets, was it a one off or a pattern. We are now onto 3rd recorded occasion.
  • TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    What an unpleasant and sinister comment.

    There's a legal case they are duty bound to decide one way or another based on statute law and centuries of legal precedent.

    Seems your argument is that they should be swayed in performing that duty by the fact the Daily Mail may do a number on them. That's an appalling road to go down, and you should be thoroughly ashamed.

    I have no problem with the argument that the LEGALLY correct decision is that the Government was within its rights. Not sure I agree, but it's perfectly respectable. The argument that they should make a decision based on fear of the press prying into their personal life, however, is one with which I have a BIG problem.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    IanB2 said:

    philiph said:

    The aggregate is up from 61% to 72%.

    .
    So 28


    LibDems have a really interesting choice to make.

    Do they want to replace Labour as the preeminent Left Centre Left force in UK?

    If the answer is yes the first action they have to take is to gain the maximum vote share and seat tally.

    This means it is in the interests of the LibDems for Labour, SNP, Plaid, Tories to suffer losses and obviously to gain as many as possible themselves.

    After the next election if the seat tally is LibDem 80 Labour 160, Labour will remain the party of the Left by default. The LibDems have to reduce the gap between the parties to the greatest extent possible. If Labour are not in power they will then change leader and there is a strong possibility that a new Labour leader would oversee the decline of the LibDems to another period of irrelevance.

    They need grow into a major party to take on and defeat Labour. A major party will not encourage voters or supporters to vote for the party they wish to replace (Labour) in the national Parliament, This in the long term should be more important to them than beating the Tory party at the next election. However they will try to gain ex Labour supporters to vote for them to replace Tory MPs whilst not lending voters to Labour for the same purpose.

    If the LibDems decide that Revoke is the be all and end all, then tactical voting may well get them there between Labour and LibDems. It will leave Labour with more seats, maybe a C&S agreement, and in a perfect position to squash the resurgence out of the LibDems.

    A real dilemma. Revoke or the second chance in 20 years (after 2010 was the other) to replace Labour for the long term. I don't think they can achieve both.
    I think that is painting a false choice. The biggest problem the LibDems have is the dispersal of their support such that, even when they come close to (or even overhaul, according to the models) Labour, as in 1983, they still fall very short in terms of seats.

    Campaigning against Brexit offers the prospect of building a geographically concentrated base of support amongst the educated working age middle classes of London and much of the South East. Taking a clear position on Brexit - as well as aligning very well with the party’s historic mission (having advocated joining from the very formation of the EEC) - offers the best prospect of turning extra votes into extra seats.
    On the Flavible (?) chart linked earlier earlier, I think the LibDems were the only party projected to get at least 1 seat in England, Scotland and Wales. True national coverage!
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    edited September 2019




    It'll follow every candidate for the Tories. Leaflets will basically write themselves. "Why vote for an MP who's happy to be shut out of parliament?"
    If you don't think this will do damage in the eyes of the moderate majority of the country, then you might be mistaking the politically entrenched geeks on here as normal. We aren't normal on here. This stuff will leave a stink around the Tories unless they nail it to Boris personally and eject him.

    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    philiph said:


    On the Flavible (?) chart linked earlier earlier, I think the LibDems were the only party projected to get at least 1 seat in England, Scotland and Wales. True national coverage!

    I mean... that's patently a nonsense conclusion. I could *just* about see the Tories getting wiped out in Scotland. But not Labour and not in Wales.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    isam said:
    And in this century. I have more sympathy when it was when somebody was a teenager in the 70s, when people did that in tv...but 2001 as a 29 year old, you have to be an absolute moron to think that it ok.

    Also, like bad tweets, was it a one off or a pattern. We are now onto 3rd recorded occasion.
    Blackface is the classic example of an unfunny person trying to make up for it by being shocking.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Good news for UKIP sellers...

    Ukip leader Richard Braine is boycotting his OWN party conference because it has only sold 450 ticket after Brexiteer members flocked to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party

    How many seats will they stand in? My spread 25-35
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited September 2019
    Talking of racism / moron...

    Peter Beardsley: Former Newcastle United coach suspended from football - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49760230

    Although if he was a coach in italy they would be claiming it was meant positively.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    How will it damage Bunter though? It's a genuine question – I am certainly not suggesting it won't – merely that I don't see the mechanism for it doing so (I am probably missing something big)

    If by 'Bunter' you mean Boris, it could damage him by making it clear that he is weak and powerless, buffeted around by Scottish lawyers and Remainiac obsessives (and by distinguished former PMs..). It may also give parliament much more time, and more incentive, to prepare alternative solutions if he tries to evade the provisions of the Benn Act.

    On the other side, it will help Cummings with his framing of the narrative as Boris battling manfully against the Quislings and establishment.

    I suspect that the latter effect will seem to be dominant in the short term, simply because of the noise from indignant No Deal fanatics, but the corrosive effect of Boris being seen to be in office but not in power will dominate in the medium term. Voters don't like helpless leaders, as Theresa May found.
    Thank you – an elegant analysis.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446


    They're not centre-left. Under Swinson or Davey, they're a Centre Party and so are roughly as close to centre-right Tories such as Grieve or Clarke as to centre-left SDP-type Labour MPs like Watson or Cooper.

    Their USP used to be that they believed in civil liberties. Thatcher and Blair didn't appear to believe in them and in particular Blair wanted to abolish jury trial.

    Having professional judges making adjudicating criminal cases vs Jurys is not a civil liberties issue.

    The dramatic reduction in legal aid is a much more profound erosion of civil liberties.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    What was David Cameron thinking in revealing his private communications with the Queen about the Scottish independence referendum? The SNP must be cock-a-hoop.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited September 2019



    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

    "Boris lied" is one narrative. As you say, already priced in.
    "Boris broke the law" is another, and a rather shocking one. Definitely not priced in in the general population.

    But time will tell if you still don't agree.

    By the way, when people talk about "projection" they usually mean someone accusing another of something they personally are guilty of. If that's what you mean, I can assure you I have never in my life -- not even once -- prorogued parliament illegally.
  • AndyJS said:

    What was David Cameron thinking in revealing his private communications with the Queen about the Scottish independence referendum? The SNP must be cock-a-hoop.

    Not the first time he has done it.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Noo said:



    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

    "Boris lied" is one narrative. As you say, already priced in.
    "Boris broke the law" is another, and a rather shocking one. Definitely not priced in in the general population.

    But time will tell if you still don't agree.

    By the way, when people talk about "projection" they usually mean someone accusing another of something they personally are guilty of. If that's what you mean, I can assure you I have never in my life -- not even once -- prorogued parliament illegally.
    Absolutely not - sorry! Was meaning the projection of ones own views onto others. Which we are all, universally, guilty of. From time to time..:o)
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,947
    If Parliament comes back next Thurs - Lab will get their Conference in full, whilst Con Conference will get wrecked!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    It has the LibDems winning Torbay.

    Not. Going. To. Happen. Kevin Foster has been running the seat as if he was a LibDem. Huge mailing list for his weekly updates, very visible in the community, especially with the faith groups.

    On the other hand, it has Tories beating Dr. Sarah in Totnes. Which I still think they will, but it has the Greens standing there against her, which they won't. But it may be that the Brexit Party candidate er, accidentally doesn't get his papers in by the deadline too....
  • MikeL said:

    If Parliament comes back next Thurs - Lab will get their Conference in full, whilst Con Conference will get wrecked!

    Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Leavers don’t do themselves any favours by attacking the judges .

    Brexit has so coloured their thinking that they never imagine anything outside this .

    The pro Brexit mob outside the court are clearly too thick and blinkered to realize one day they might applaud the decision going against the government .

    If Johnson can use this power whenever he likes what’s to stop a PM who they don’t support doing the same .
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Pulpstar said:

    Good news for UKIP sellers...

    Ukip leader Richard Braine is boycotting his OWN party conference because it has only sold 450 ticket after Brexiteer members flocked to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party

    That 450 may be very much on the high side. Elsewhere it has been reported as barely 100....
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:



    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

    "Boris lied" is one narrative. As you say, already priced in.
    "Boris broke the law" is another, and a rather shocking one. Definitely not priced in in the general population.

    But time will tell if you still don't agree.

    By the way, when people talk about "projection" they usually mean someone accusing another of something they personally are guilty of. If that's what you mean, I can assure you I have never in my life -- not even once -- prorogued parliament illegally.
    Absolutely not - sorry! Was meaning the projection of ones own views onto others. Which we are all, universally, guilty of. From time to time..:o)
    Oh yes, well, it's always good to be on guard against that. I hope I'm not and I don't think I am. I do tend to have a sense of whether my opinion is pretty poorly represented "out there"... for example I'm a republican but I don't think for a minute a referendum on abolishing the monarchy would garner much more than a few percentage points.
    But people do care about wrongdoing in office, and if the PM broke the law I really think it'll have traction. Just think how well the idea of Tony Blair being a war criminal has stuck in the popular imagination (and that's without a court finding against him!).

    But if you don't agree, we can just wait and see.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,768
    edited September 2019
    AndyJS said:

    What was David Cameron thinking in revealing his private communications with the Queen about the Scottish independence referendum? The SNP must be cock-a-hoop.

    Also - as OblitusSumMe pointed out earlier - the London Gmt was using the abrogation of Royal powers in Scotland as a quite separate threat in indyref 1 (ie she won't be your direct Queen of Scots any more, was the promise). Would they have made that without consultation with HM? Do Mr Cameron's memoirs throw light on this too, I wonder?
  • So has Ronan Lavery had his testicles handed back yet or does the Supreme Court get to keep them in perpuity?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Pulpstar said:

    Good news for UKIP sellers...

    Ukip leader Richard Braine is boycotting his OWN party conference because it has only sold 450 ticket after Brexiteer members flocked to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party

    That 450 may be very much on the high side. Elsewhere it has been reported as barely 100....
    Good. That's what they deserve after letting the fascists in. Ukip have been a clusterfk since Farage left, and it's high time they shuffled off forever.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,574


    Noo said:



    It'll follow every candidate for the Tories. Leaflets will basically write themselves. "Why vote for an MP who's happy to be shut out of parliament?"
    If you don't think this will do damage in the eyes of the moderate majority of the country, then you might be mistaking the politically entrenched geeks on here as normal. We aren't normal on here. This stuff will leave a stink around the Tories unless they nail it to Boris personally and eject him.

    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

    I think the issue for Boris is that if the SC find against him it will be one more (rather large) drip in the drip, drip, drip of adverse publicity that is, rightly or wrongly, increasingly showing him to be untrustworthy, cowardly and inept.

    In the long-term that might damage him beyond recovery. Remember May was initially very popular and widely admired; it was only after a long series of mishaps, missteps and mistakes that here reputation as PM came to be utterly trashed.

    Boris needs some things to go right for him, to show him as a winner.

    If the SC decides in his favour that would help. Getting a deal from the EU would help massively... provided it's a deal which he can get his cabinet, the ERG hardliners, the DUP and the ex-Tory independents to support.

    Not impossible but not easy.
  • I think leavers will be cheering the judges if the result goes their way next week.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    That's not a power you deserve to be trusted with
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning, and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    I’d be rather concerned if I was the government at the long time spent by the judges on what a remedy should be .

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,574

    I think leavers will be cheering the judges if the result goes their way next week.

    Haha yes, that would be ironic.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning, and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning?
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning - Meeks view

    and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning? - Rose QC view
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited September 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning, and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning?
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning - Meeks view

    and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning? - Rose QC view
    It was not just mr meeks but several linked legal commentators including I believe David Allen green earlier this week. So the attempt at an appeal to authority doesnt work.

    The government case has looked weaker to me as a layman, but people still appear to be picking when we should infer based on what they want. And being a QC doesnt affect that, theres top lawyers on both sides.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    Yep, that's my point......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:



    I think you may be projecting there a little.

    Whatever the SC decides will merely reinforce whatever view people who care about such things already have, Those who don't particularly care now won't care anymore after a decision - and a leaflet won't do anything to change that. A positive decision for the Government won't convince those rabidly against Boris that he's actually ok and not a liar etc etc - and vice versa.

    If anything ,with respect to Boris in particular, is that most, if not all the issues about him which vex those on this blog are already priced-in.

    "Boris lied" you may scream, but I think those who care already know that.

    I can assure you I have never in my life -- not even once -- prorogued parliament illegally.
    Why should we believe you?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Six council by-elections tonight. On paper the LD's only really look like runners in one, but given the current state of politics, one never knows.
    See https://britainelects.com/category/council-by-elections/

    This ward looks suspiciously gerrymandered. What’s all that about?


    That doesn’t look particularly gerrymandered, just avoiding the town. If you want gerrymandered constituencies, check out the US congress.
    I’m aware of US congressional districts and how shameless they are.

    It just doesn’t look like a sensible local government boundary to me. Why would you not include the town and make it smaller?
    Parish boundaries I would have thought.
    I live in Maryland. The media portray gerrymandering as a Republican thing, but the Democrats in this state take second place to no-one. Check out these Congressional districts:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-maryland-democrats-pulled-off-their-aggressive-gerrymander/

    If the districts were reasonably shaped, the GOP would win 3-5 of the seats regularly (as the Dem vote is inefficiently concentrated in urban centers, which they would win by massive margins). As it is, the gerrymander ensure the Dems of 7 seats out of 8 every election. District 5 is gerrymandered to include Prince George's, 6 to include Silver Spring, and 8 to include Bethesda, Rockville and Germantown. There are no words to describe how the Baltimore vote has been divided up to overpower the burbs. Just look at 2, 3 and 4 ...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    isam said:

    Police have said the fastest-growing threat of terrorist violence in the UK is from the far right, with seven of the 22 plots to cause mass casualties since March 2017 being driven by extreme rightwing ideology.

    They said referrals to anti-radicalisation programmes of those feared to be at risk of committing far-right terrorist acts had doubled between 2016 and 2018, and were expected to rise further.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/19/fastest-growing-uk-terrorist-threat-is-from-far-right-say-police

    "The remainder were jihadist, which remains the biggest terrorist threat to the UK and has stabilised at a very high level after years of growth."

    If jihadism has stabilised, and far right has increased, what form has gone down?
    So the report considers 22 cases of which the fastest growing has increased to 7. Also notice that the "doubling" time frame is different from the "fastest growing" time frame. The increase is probably an increase of two, maybe three.

    Making inference on these small numbers is really dodgy as the reason is just as likely to be random variation as an underlying trend.
  • Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1174682159673724929
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
  • Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning, and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning?
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning - Meeks view

    and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning? - Rose QC view
    To clarify, I think I said that we shouldn’t infer very much from the judges’ questioning.

    But I don’t think this line of questioning tells us very much anyway. I’m more guided by the arguments - in particular, those put forward on Sir John Major’s behalf look strong to me.

    But it is still very much capable of being decided either way.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Lord Pannick is a quite brilliant QC , and handled the remedy questions superbly . In effect he asked for the least political decision. He doesn’t want to give the judges a reason to think this is too political and he’s asking us for remedies that will involve us too much politically and then in that passage he still made his point re parliament and the importance of being able to make those decisions if it’s sitting .
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited September 2019

    Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1174682159673724929

    The new junta look like a pretty sinister lot, especially Putin's younger brother first on the left.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:
    There has to be a distinct possibility that Boris Johnson will no longer be Prime Minister by then. If he loses in the Supreme Court, that makes a much better pretext for dumping him than Brexit.
    https://twitter.com/DinahRoseQC/status/1174684902593302528?s=20
    Hang on, on the one hand we were told not to infer anything about their view from the judges' questioning, and now we are told we should infer their view from their questioning?
    Jolyon maugham has tweeted that in his experience cases are won at the start not the end and the decision had been made before today
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    edited September 2019

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    He's been elected through the normal channels and put himself up for a confirmatory vote from the British public. It's an amusing quip but it'll have no truck with fair minded people that he is... deliberately... unelected right now.

    And yes as @Ozymandias points out he does indeed have the confidence of the commons.
  • He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.

    Does he? So far, he's lost every vote that has been held.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.
    That’s why he’s won every vote in Parliament since our Nazi salute giving monarch appointed him PM?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1174686070316916737?s=19

    A man confident of victory or eager to legislate after defeat?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850

    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.

    Does he? So far, he's lost every vote that has been held.
    Irrelevant to whether the House has confidence in him or not
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.

    Does he? So far, he's lost every vote that has been held.
    Until he loses a vote of No Confidence, he has Confidence. By definition. A majority is something else. A lack of a majority does not mean he doesn't have legitimacy.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
  • Pulpstar said:

    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.

    Does he? So far, he's lost every vote that has been held.
    Irrelevant to whether the House has confidence in him or not
    We don't know, it hasn't been tested. But his record suggests that he might not have.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1174682159673724929

    The new junta look like a pretty sinister lot, especially Putin's younger brother first on the left.
    He is obviously struggling under the weight of his super army soldier wings.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1174686070316916737?s=19

    A man confident of victory or eager to legislate after defeat?

    Sounds like he’s worried a deal might be presented to Parliament soon and wants stop that happening..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    edited September 2019

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1174686070316916737?s=19

    A man confident of victory or eager to legislate after defeat?

    A man eager to win no matter the courts findings.

    Pulpstar said:

    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.

    Does he? So far, he's lost every vote that has been held.
    Irrelevant to whether the House has confidence in him or not
    We don't know, it hasn't been tested. But his record suggests that he might not have.
    Well Corbyn could test it, and so far he's not taken that opportunity. Hence Johnson as of right now has the full confidence of the Commons.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    edited September 2019
    @TGOHF if the judges rule that the law is that the Prime Minister cannot prorogue without good reason, Boris is free to campaign on a manifesto to create a new statute to change the law.

    I doubt he will though because who wants to give the Prime Minister that much power?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    same applies to Leo Varadkar

    is he not a legitimate Taoiseach ?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
    It is the case though that, for political reasons, parliament did not use any if the tools open to it prior to prorogation, so why or how can the courts fill that void and make political advantage illegal for the executive but fine for parliament?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Boris is of course legitimately our Prime Minister. He became PM by means of the system which we have all accepted for decades.

    Still a twat, mind, but legitimately PM.
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 188

    Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1174682159673724929

    The new junta look like a pretty sinister lot, especially Putin's younger brother first on the left.
    why do the army get more slots than the navy and the navy more than the airforce? or were there just a few no shows
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
    It is the case though that, for political reasons, parliament did not use any if the tools open to it prior to prorogation, so why or how can the courts fill that void and make political advantage illegal for the executive but fine for parliament?
    As the Barristers in the case highlighted, that is irrelevant. You can’t claim that a murder is not illegal because you did nothing to stop it.

    Why would they do anything to stop it if they believed it was unlawful?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It is the case though that, for political reasons, parliament did not use any if the tools open to it prior to prorogation, so why or how can the courts fill that void and make political advantage illegal for the executive but fine for parliament?

    Pannick explicitly did not ask them to rule on that.

    He asked them to rule if the advice was unlawful. Political advantage is neother here nor there.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
    Surely there are both constitutional and political elements, and the two are inextricably intertwined, which is why the question of justiciability is so tricky.
  • F

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    same applies to Leo Varadkar

    is he not a legitimate Taoiseach ?
    Leo V was appointed by an elected head of state not via a North Korean style hereditary ruling family.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
    It isnt. Its a bunch of bad losers trying to use the courts to get their way. The correct thing atm is dissolve Parliament and hold an election. Parliament can resolve the impasse itself.
  • rawzer said:

    Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1174682159673724929

    The new junta look like a pretty sinister lot, especially Putin's younger brother first on the left.
    why do the army get more slots than the navy and the navy more than the airforce? or were there just a few no shows
    This is the sort of Kremlinology we need to understand where the power lies under the new regime.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    MTimT said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    You can’t .

    Hence why if they deem this justiciable- then in the future appointments will be politically vetted.

    So we will end up with a US style system of judges selected by politics.

    “We have to have a remainer judge appointed because ....”

    Huge can of worms unleashed by this potentially.

    You only think this is a political decision because you don’t agree with it. It is clearly a matter of our constitution which is a legal issue, not a political issue.
    Surely there are both constitutional and political elements, and the two are inextricably intertwined, which is why the question of justiciability is so tricky.
    Yes and Boris Johnson is a complete idiot for opening this can of worms. There is a reason why this has never been a problem in the past.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,574

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    I must be in a minority of one on here but I can't get excited about the SC case, and don't really care what it decides.

    As for Bunter misleading the Queen, as I oppose having a monarchy full stop I can't much get excited about that either!

    I’m interested in it from the constitutional perspective, rather than what it means for Brexit.


    I don’t get out much.... :D
    I think it will restrict the ability of the government to prorogue.

    The remedy I suggest is that Parliament votes to prorogue itself in future by a simple majority in the future. Similar to what we saw with the FTPA.
    as ever the fkwits briniging the case cant imagine a situation where it will backfire on them as it inevitably will.
    It’ll be fine, the legal profession and the judiciary will come to the rescue of the country.
    If the judges are going to run the country they had best check their closets for skeletons - anonymous no more....

    Should imagine the Sunday’s are already on the case..
    Sinister post from you
    Politicians and the royalty have had their dirty laundry aired.

    For now judges have escaped - but if they are going to be part of the running of the nation they can expect scrutiny - not a threat , an obvious consequence.
    When can I vote out judges making political decisions?
    Same way you can vote out a monarch.
    But the Monarch acts on the advice of those who I have elected. And can unelect.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    He has the Confidence of Parliament. At least at the moment. Which is all that matters.
    That’s why he’s won every vote in Parliament since our Nazi salute giving monarch appointed him PM?
    Damn - there goes your MBE! :disappointed:
  • Leo V was appointed by an elected head of state not via a North Korean style hereditary ruling family.

    That's a rather extreme way of referring to Jacob Rees-Mogg.
This discussion has been closed.