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

1246

Comments

  • TGOHF said:


    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.

    Senior judges were, until very recently (2009), appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (a cabinet minister).

    And your point is complete nonsense. If (and it's a big IF) the Supreme Court rule against the Government then it's an interesting legal point but not at all clear who it helps in even the medium term.

    Parliament did, in fact, get a key piece of legislation through before prorogation took effect, so the stakes are actually much lower today than they may have been had that legislation successfully been averted by Johnson.

    As to the longer term, the precedent affects future Governments regardless of political hue. Wiser Tories than most who frequent here (though there are a few who've realised this) have noted that the biggest thing Cummings may have done with his prorogation wheeze is hand a huge stick to Milne or anyone else to beat Parliament with in future.
  • 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 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.
    Those are two completely separate things.

    The judges are ruling on what the law *IS*.

    Whether we have an election or not is neither here nor there. If Boris has acted unlawfully, he’s acted unlawfully.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    TOPPING said:

    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.

    Indeed. Whenever we get a new PM and the 'unelected' accusation comes out it is pretty blatant nonsense particularly on 'mandate'.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    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.

    That was an interesting point raised this morning.

    Even if Parliament has a remedy for a PM acting honourably, it appears to have no remedy for a PM intent on pursuing a course of action detrimental to the Country for personal political advantage.

    Enter BoZo...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    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.
    that N Korean family go to the polls and regularly get elected with 99.9% of votes cast unlike Leo V
  • 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.
    The country didn’t elect Boris Johnson, he has no mandate nor a majority in Parliament.
    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    @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?

    Would be a very bizarre campaign gambit, wouldn't it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    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.
    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,993

    Looks like a military coup is underway. :)

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

    Not an advert for British tailoring, is it ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    Conservatives Sunday 29 September 2019 Wednesday 2 October 2019 Manchester Central Convention Complex

    It's gonna be lit.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Would be a very bizarre campaign gambit, wouldn't it?

    Not if you win.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    To change prorogation you need Queens Consent to even allow the first stage of the Bill .

    Bozo could ask her to refuse . Therefore MPs powers are limited in this area .
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    edited September 2019
    kle4 said:

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.

    Do you not think it’s a good thing that the limits (or lackof limit) of the Prime Minister’s powers will hopefully become more clear? It levels the playing field.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    edited September 2019
    RobD 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.

    I don’t imagine they’ll do anything if sitting.

    Edit: I take that back. I can imagine a day’s business devoted to tributes to the departing speaker.
    It is not unlikely that this case, while interesting, will benefit no-one much whatever is decided; just as Miller 1 (Article 50 case) was legally interesting but parliament used its right, founded on that case, to trigger Art 50 anyway.

    I can't see that parliament has much to do on Brexit assuming that it can't make any further decisions until it has a deal to vote on. It has already purported to make leaving with No Deal on 31 Oct impossible.

    In the long run I suspect this case will be about the sheer grubbiness of government in general, and this bunch of charlatans in particular.

    The longer it went on the less it seemed to be about any real advantage to Leave or Remain.

    PS Anyone got a view on what Ronan Lavery's agenda was. He wasn't there to make friends with the bench, but what was he trying to achieve?

  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408

    Gabs2 said:


    The opposition parties will call a GE as soon as Oct 31st passes.

    Maybe
    Corbyn won't. Corbyn isn't interested in VoNC. He's not interested in being PM. He's just a serial moaner, as some have found out.
  • 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 s 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 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 itself.
    Those are two completely separate things.

    The judges are ruling on what the law *IS*.

    Whether we have an election or not is neither here nor there. If Boris has acted unlawfully, he’s acted unlawfully.
    nonsense. The judges should not be dragged in to a political bunfight. The whole premis of this and other shenanigans such as Bercows failure to remain impartial are a result of a dysfunctional Parliament. Mixing Law and Politics is largely a retrograde step and will increasingly take us down the path of US legal challenges on everything.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    kle4 said:

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.

    Do you not think it’s as good thing that the limits (or lackof limit) of the Prime Minister’s powers will hopefully become more clear? It levels the playing field.
    I do think it's a good idea to know the limits or not. But some political means to definitely stop no deal or remove johnson were not taken because politicians dont want to cooperate and are hoping court defeats take down Johnson to make it easier for them. If they are wrong and he can act in this way then they wasted the time hoping the courts would resolve it for them.


  • 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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    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.


    This may be getting a little out of perspective. Only in the mind of HYUFD is everything seen through the prism of Brexit. There will be a considerable number of lifelong tribal Tories and tribal Labour supporters who may disagree on their party's position on Brexit, but will still vote tribally nonetheless. It would be interesting to see how flakey or otherwise that position is. Will Labour leave voters vote Tory ? Not many I suspect. Will many younger otherwise Tory voting folk vote LD? Quite likely. The question will be how significant this is on polling day when it actually matters. I bottled voting LD at the last GE. I won't do so this time.
    I live in Surbiton and a Labour supporter. Labour polls just above 10% in a good year. In 2015, I couldn't bring myself to vote LD. But in 2017 I did. In the Europeans, I voted Green. In the Mayoral, I vote Labour.
    In both 2015 and 2017 Labour polled almost 15% . In 1997 its vote share was 23%.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    algarkirk said:

    In the long run I suspect this case will be about the sheer grubbiness of government in general, and this bunch of charlatans in particular.

    The longer it went on the less it seemed to be about any real advantage to Leave or Remain.

    Yes, it's about how far a politician like BoZo is willing to go in pursuit of power

    Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded and has no regard for the political process. The more power he attains the more obvious his zealotry and the more aggressive his supporter become. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued without regard to its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Fuelled by the media, fear and panic spread quickly fracturing and dividing the country. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the results of the elections that year. No one. And not long after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built to canonize their victims. For the end result, the true genius of the plan was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.

    ENGLAND PREVAILS !!!
  • 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 s 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 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 itself.
    Those are two completely separate things.

    The judges are ruling on what the law *IS*.

    Whether we have an election or not is neither here nor there. If Boris has acted unlawfully, he’s acted unlawfully.
    nonsense. The judges should not be dragged in to a political bunfight. The whole premis of this and other shenanigans such as Bercows failure to remain impartial are a result of a dysfunctional Parliament. Mixing Law and Politics is largely a retrograde step and will increasingly take us down the path of US legal challenges on everything.
    You’re embarrassing yourself.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Thomas Cook on the brink..
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.

    Do you not think it’s as good thing that the limits (or lackof limit) of the Prime Minister’s powers will hopefully become more clear? It levels the playing field.
    I do think it's a good idea to know the limits or not. But some political means to definitely stop no deal or remove johnson were not taken because politicians dont want to cooperate and are hoping court defeats take down Johnson to make it easier for them. If they are wrong and he can act in this way then they wasted the time hoping the courts would resolve it for them.

    I don’t disagree. But unfortunately our political system makes it hard for parties to work together. Exhibit A is what happened to the Lib Dems after the coalition.
  • viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited September 2019
    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    They could have no confidenced him and backed someone else as PM for starters. That was politically tricky so they kicked the can and taken the risk he is right.

    The court case is interesting and the anti prorogation case looks good, but parliament didnt need to wait on it. The lawfulness was secondary to it being wrong in my view and parliament could have acted on his intent.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648



    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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    Vote of no confidence and replacing him as Prime Minister with somebody else.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Pulpstar said:

    Conservatives Sunday 29 September 2019 Wednesday 2 October 2019 Manchester Central Convention Complex

    It's gonna be lit.

    ?? I assume you aren't simply saying they are going to put the lights on.
  • 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 s 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 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 itself.
    Those are two completely separate things.

    The judges are ruling on what the law *IS*.

    Whether we have an election or not is neither here nor there. If Boris has acted unlawfully, he’s acted unlawfully.
    nonsense. The judges should not be dragged in to a p path of US legal challenges on everything.
    You’re embarrassing yourself.
    Youve run out of arguments I take it.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Conservatives Sunday 29 September 2019 Wednesday 2 October 2019 Manchester Central Convention Complex

    It's gonna be lit.

    I'm so glad I work 400 yards away from the G-Mex*

    It'll always be the G-Mex to me, not the Manchester Central Convention Complex.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited September 2019

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.

    Do you not think it’s as good thing that the limits (or lackof limit) of the Prime Minister’s powers will hopefully become more clear? It levels the playing field.
    I do think it's a good idea to know the limits or not. But some political means to definitely stop no deal or remove johnson were not taken because politicians dont want to cooperate and are hoping court defeats take down Johnson to make it easier for them. If they are wrong and he can act in this way then they wasted the time hoping the courts would resolve it for them.

    I don’t disagree. But unfortunately our political system makes it hard for parties to work together. Exhibit A is what happened to the Lib Dems after the coalition.
    It being hard does not excuse them ducking the options. They collectively have power over us and have to take tough decisions. Country before party after all, something the other side could learn too.
  • ukelectukelect Posts: 106
    That Ipsos-MORI poll could result in Con 328 Lab 200 SNP 52 LD 45 according to the latest UK-Elect version - a narrow Tory overall majority.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
    He lives in Derbyshire I think. The Peak District? Do you count that as southern?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,993

    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.
    I assumed the Spectator tweet was intended satirically ?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    edited September 2019

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything you post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    MTimT said:

    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 ...
    Yet every recent court case on gerrymandering has had all the Republican justices support it and all the Democrats oppose it.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408



    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.

    Surely, if Johnson has any brains (ahhh..... the flaw in the plan) he wouldn't allow himself to be in Government but unable to get anything done. If Corbyn/Rebels won't pass a Brexit deal (or most other legislation) but also won't pass a GE vote, then just VoNC yourself and three line whip Con MPs to vote FOR the VoNC.

    It'd force the General Election, unless Labour really want to walk through the 'Confidence in the Government' lobby.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
    He lives in Derbyshire I think. The Peak District? Do you count that as southern?
    Of course. It’s south of the Tyne.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,869
    edited September 2019
    If she interviewed him in the afternoon he will have had a few. They don't miss any tricks at Sky News.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.


  • 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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before that happened, and remains an important constitutional principle (and potentially has an impact on Johnson's tenure as PM to the extent he lied to the Queen).

    But, as previously noted, Parliament has to a fair extent already got what they want. Johnson rattles the sabre on disobeying the law, "loopholes" and so on. But he's been notably non-specific. For the moment, he's a prisoner in Downing Street with legislation requiring him to do something he's on the record as saying is less attractive to him than "dying in a ditch". Both losers? I don't think so.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    I more often than not dont post about Brexit since I find its too entrenched for anyone to change their mind. As for how it has turned out Im happy enough as I said ages ago the vote will break the mould of british politics of the last two decades and that was one of things I expected out of it.


  • 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.

    Surely, if Johnson has any brains (ahhh..... the flaw in the plan) he wouldn't allow himself to be in Government but unable to get anything done. If Corbyn/Rebels won't pass a Brexit deal (or most other legislation) but also won't pass a GE vote, then just VoNC yourself and three line whip Con MPs to vote FOR the VoNC.

    It'd force the General Election, unless Labour really want to walk through the 'Confidence in the Government' lobby.
    If Con MPs are walking through the No Confidence in the Government lobby then Lab MPs won't be embarassed to walk through the Confidence in the Government lobby.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582



    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.

    Surely, if Johnson has any brains (ahhh..... the flaw in the plan) he wouldn't allow himself to be in Government but unable to get anything done. If Corbyn/Rebels won't pass a Brexit deal (or most other legislation) but also won't pass a GE vote, then just VoNC yourself and three line whip Con MPs to vote FOR the VoNC.

    It'd force the General Election, unless Labour really want to walk through the 'Confidence in the Government' lobby.
    "It'd force the General Election"...

    I think it would first force the HoC to appoint a temporary 'GoNU' PM who could ask for an A50 extension.

    The GE would not be before 31 October, so the HoC would want that extension to avoid No Deal.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    I more often than not dont post about Brexit since I find its too entrenched for anyone to change their mind. As for how it has turned out Im happy enough as I said ages ago the vote will break the mould of british politics of the last two decades and that was one of things I expected out of it.
    Yeah, who needs stability. F*ck ‘em. Let the world burn. I’ll be king of the ashes.

    Fantastic.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    kle4 said:

    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    They could have no confidenced him and backed someone else as PM for starters. That was politically tricky so they kicked the can and taken the risk he is right.

    The court case is interesting and the anti prorogation case looks good, but parliament didnt need to wait on it. The lawfulness was secondary to it being wrong in my view and parliament could have acted on his intent.
    The case that the court has jurisdiction is pretty good. The case that it should act in this case is much thinner, not least because parliament itself has had abundant opportunity either to VONC or vote for an election under FTPA or to legislate to overrule the prorogation. Both government and parliament have behaved in cowardly and corkscrew like ways. Neither side deserves to win. maybe the poor old voter deserves a more competent parliament and government.

    If the central question becomes integrity and competence, the least tainted outfit at the moment is the LDs. If they cannot cash in on this now, it is hard to see when they can.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648



    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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before that happened, and remains an important constitutional principle (and potentially has an impact on Johnson's tenure as PM to the extent he lied to the Queen).

    But, as previously noted, Parliament has to a fair extent already got what they want. Johnson rattles the sabre on disobeying the law, "loopholes" and so on. But he's been notably non-specific. For the moment, he's a prisoner in Downing Street with legislation requiring him to do something he's on the record as saying is less attractive to him than "dying in a ditch". Both losers? I don't think so.
    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
    No, negotiations will go on for 20 years, hopefully with us back in the EU. But Brexit is "the scheduled withdrawal of the UK from the EU". If we leave, under any form, Brexit has happened. Everything that happens after that is ramifications of the event.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    They could have no confidenced him and backed someone else as PM for starters. That was politically tricky so they kicked the can and taken the risk he is right.

    The court case is interesting and the anti prorogation case looks good, but parliament didnt need to wait on it. The lawfulness was secondary to it being wrong in my view and parliament could have acted on his intent.
    The case that the court has jurisdiction is pretty good. The case that it should act in this case is much thinner, not least because parliament itself has had abundant opportunity either to VONC or vote for an election under FTPA or to legislate to overrule the prorogation. Both government and parliament have behaved in cowardly and corkscrew like ways. Neither side deserves to win. maybe the poor old voter deserves a more competent parliament and government.

    If the central question becomes integrity and competence, the least tainted outfit at the moment is the LDs. If they cannot cash in on this now, it is hard to see when they can.

    As was mentioned today in court:

    * A PM could lose a VONC and yet still prorogue Parliament to prevent an alternative government being formed.

    * A PM could prorogue Parliament to prevent a bill, that looks like it was about to achieve royal assent, from passing.

    The implications for a PM having unlimited power in this area are enormous. Clarity on this area is sorely needed.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    I more often than not dont post about Brexit since I find its too entrenched for anyone to change their mind. As for how it has turned out Im happy enough as I said ages ago the vote will break the mould of british politics of the last two decades and that was one of things I expected out of it.
    Yeah, who needs stability. F*ck ‘em. Let the world burn. I’ll be king of the ashes.

    Fantastic.
    Politics changes and a new consensus emerges. There wont be ashes just a few burnt fingers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
    No, negotiations will go on for 20 years, hopefully with us back in the EU. But Brexit is "the scheduled withdrawal of the UK from the EU". If we leave, under any form, Brexit has happened. Everything that happens after that is ramifications of the event.
    I disagree.


  • 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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before that happened, and remains an important constitutional principle (and potentially has an impact on Johnson's tenure as PM to the extent he lied to the Queen).

    But, as previously noted, Parliament has to a fair extent already got what they want. Johnson rattles the sabre on disobeying the law, "loopholes" and so on. But he's been notably non-specific. For the moment, he's a prisoner in Downing Street with legislation requiring him to do something he's on the record as saying is less attractive to him than "dying in a ditch". Both losers? I don't think so.
    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.
    Yes, but he knows what he needs to do to get that - extend (breaking his word) and then ask Parliament for an election. Parliament has his balls in a vice pretty much.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
    No, negotiations will go on for 20 years, hopefully with us back in the EU. But Brexit is "the scheduled withdrawal of the UK from the EU". If we leave, under any form, Brexit has happened. Everything that happens after that is ramifications of the event.
    I disagree.
    You can disagree all you like but that doesn't change the definition of terms.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
    No, negotiations will go on for 20 years, hopefully with us back in the EU. But Brexit is "the scheduled withdrawal of the UK from the EU". If we leave, under any form, Brexit has happened. Everything that happens after that is ramifications of the event.
    I disagree.
    You can disagree all you like but that doesn't change the definition of terms.
    Well it does. You’re just being awkward for the sake of it.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408

    TGOHF said:


    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.

    Senior judges were, until very recently (2009), appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (a cabinet minister).

    And your point is complete nonsense. If (and it's a big IF) the Supreme Court rule against the Government then it's an interesting legal point but not at all clear who it helps in even the medium term.

    Parliament did, in fact, get a key piece of legislation through before prorogation took effect, so the stakes are actually much lower today than they may have been had that legislation successfully been averted by Johnson.

    As to the longer term, the precedent affects future Governments regardless of political hue. Wiser Tories than most who frequent here (though there are a few who've realised this) have noted that the biggest thing Cummings may have done with his prorogation wheeze is hand a huge stick to Milne or anyone else to beat Parliament with in future.
    Agreed. And what's even more bizarre is that prorogation should be at Parliaments discretion, not the Monarch (on the advice of her Prime Minister). Surely this was the whole point of the English Civil War? Did Parliament win, or am I misremembering that one?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,946

    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
    .
    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 s 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 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 itself.
    Those are two completely separate things.

    nonsense. The judges should not be dragged in to a political bunfight. The whole premis of this and other shenanigans such as Bercows failure to remain impartial are a result of a dysfunctional Parliament. Mixing Law and Politics is largely a retrograde step and will increasingly take us down the path of US legal challenges on everything.
    Alan, You cannot allow these Tory shysters to run roughshod over the old boys handshake constitution. It was never envisioned that oafs and ne'er do wells would get into positions of power and abuse it. They are supposed to be Honourable Gentlemen.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648



    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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before that happened, and remains an important constitutional principle (and potentially has an impact on Johnson's tenure as PM to the extent he lied to the Queen).

    But, as previously noted, Parliament has to a fair extent already got what they want. Johnson rattles the sabre on disobeying the law, "loopholes" and so on. But he's been notably non-specific. For the moment, he's a prisoner in Downing Street with legislation requiring him to do something he's on the record as saying is less attractive to him than "dying in a ditch". Both losers? I don't think so.
    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.
    Yes, but he knows what he needs to do to get that - extend (breaking his word) and then ask Parliament for an election. Parliament has his balls in a vice pretty much.
    This is simply the opposition playing games, as of course is their right, but it can only end badly. We need a vote to clear heads and gain a chance to start afresh. this Parliament is simply sick and needs to be put out of its misery.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    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.
    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.
    Traditionally of course there was an election after a change of monarch.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
    He lives in Derbyshire I think. The Peak District? Do you count that as southern?
    Derbyshire is the Midlands, not the north or south. Where did this obsession with dividing the country into two blocs come from?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    TGOHF said:


    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.

    Senior judges were, until very recently (2009), appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (a cabinet minister).

    And your point is complete nonsense. If (and it's a big IF) the Supreme Court rule against the Government then it's an interesting legal point but not at all clear who it helps in even the medium term.

    Parliament did, in fact, get a key piece of legislation through before prorogation took effect, so the stakes are actually much lower today than they may have been had that legislation successfully been averted by Johnson.

    As to the longer term, the precedent affects future Governments regardless of political hue. Wiser Tories than most who frequent here (though there are a few who've realised this) have noted that the biggest thing Cummings may have done with his prorogation wheeze is hand a huge stick to Milne or anyone else to beat Parliament with in future.
    Agreed. And what's even more bizarre is that prorogation should be at Parliaments discretion, not the Monarch (on the advice of her Prime Minister). Surely this was the whole point of the English Civil War? Did Parliament win, or am I misremembering that one?
    Parliament won, but it's win was Revoked later!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685



    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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before that happened, and remains an important constitutional principle (and potentially has an impact on Johnson's tenure as PM to the extent he lied to the Queen).

    But, as previously noted, Parliament has to a fair extent already got what they want. Johnson rattles the sabre on disobeying the law, "loopholes" and so on. But he's been notably non-specific. For the moment, he's a prisoner in Downing Street with legislation requiring him to do something he's on the record as saying is less attractive to him than "dying in a ditch". Both losers? I don't think so.
    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.
    Yes, but he knows what he needs to do to get that - extend (breaking his word) and then ask Parliament for an election. Parliament has his balls in a vice pretty much.
    This is simply the opposition playing games, as of course is their right, but it can only end badly. We need a vote to clear heads and gain a chance to start afresh. this Parliament is simply sick and needs to be put out of its misery.
    This Parliament was elected by the people in 2017 to serve a 5 year term. Why are you so willing to against the will of the people for your own political ends?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077
    What both Yougov and Ipsos Mori show you is the battle is now LD and Labour for second place with the Tories clearly out in front
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    edited September 2019

    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.

    I don't think they plan to leave him there for 3 years, but currently he's still planning on running on the idea that he's got a deal up his sleeve that doesn't contain the downsides he said were there when he opposed TMay's deal.

    Since this is an attractive prospect to the voters and they think he's lying about it and only really has either No Deal or TMay's Deal in a bad fake moustache, they at least want him to have to show the voters what he's really holding before they let him have an election.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Youve run out of arguments I take it.

    You have no arguments. Everything your post is one long extended whinge about how Brexit hasn’t turned out like you hoped and how it’s everyone else's fault rather than your own.
    Brexit hasn't happened so hasn't turned out any way.
    Considering Brexit is a process not an event I would say it has.
    No, it isn't. Brexit is the exit of the UK from the EU. While we are in the EU, Brexit has not happened. You are trying to argue the sky is green.
    I disagree. It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people believing that ‘no deal’ means the end of Brexit. It doesn’t. Brexit will go on for the next 20 years.
    No, negotiations will go on for 20 years, hopefully with us back in the EU. But Brexit is "the scheduled withdrawal of the UK from the EU". If we leave, under any form, Brexit has happened. Everything that happens after that is ramifications of the event.
    If we leave under a modified May's deal, Farage and co will be claiming we haven't left at all.

    The only way to end Brexit is to revoke A50. :smile:
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648



    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.

    Love the use of "losers". Very Trumpian.

    We're looking at a PM who:

    LOST his majority whilst he stood at the dispatch box.

    LOST his first votes as PM.

    LOST 20+ MPs in the aftermath.

    LOST his battle to stop the extension legislation.

    LOST the support of his own brother.

    LOST a cabinet minister - an old friend who just couldn't believe a word he said.

    LOST his bid to run down the clock by having an election without extending as required.

    LOST a stand-off with the PM of Luxembourg (Luxembourg FFS!)

    LOST yet another MP within the last week.

    You're looking in totally the wrong place for bad losers.
    No both sides have lost on this and approached it the in their own double down approach to getting their way. BoJo has played silly buggers and Remain have played going to the courts. So yes losers.
    Parliament actually managed to get their legislation before prorogation.

    The case was of course brought before t". Both losers? I don't think so.
    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.
    Yes, but he knows what he needs to do to get that a vice pretty much.
    This is simply the opposition playing games, as of course is their right, but it can only end badly. We need a vote to clear heads and gain a chance to start afresh. this Parliament is simply sick and needs to be put out of its misery.
    This Parliament was elected by the people in 2017 to serve a 5 year term. Why are you so willing to against the will of the people for your own political ends?
    Ive seen short Parliaments in my lifetime, its nothing new. If the government does not function you do the sensible thing and elect a new one only the FTPA is keeping this corpse going.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Reading James Forsyth’s piece, the EU would prefer a deal to an extension.

    How does a GoNu get that without the Cons and the DUP ?

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    HYUFD said:

    What both Yougov and Ipsos Mori show you is the battle is now LD and Labour for second place with the Tories clearly out in front

    Once the LDs get past Labour they'll have the Tories clearly in their sights. :wink:

    More seriously, I think everything depends on the situation when a GE actually happens: whether we have left or extended, if we've left how smooth has it been, etc.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited September 2019


    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.

    Quite right. So all Boris needs to do is negotiate an Article 50 extension of a few months, so as not to close off any options for the next government, and then go for a general election.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Averages of polls published over the last 10 days:

    Con 33.3%
    Lab 24.0%
    LD 20.2%
    BRX 11.8%
    Grn 4.2%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    Ive seen short Parliaments in my lifetime, its nothing new. If the government does not function you do the sensible thing and elect a new one only the FTPA is keeping this corpse going.

    And? You’re missing the point that I’m highlighting your hypocrisy.

    The people elected this parliament in 2017 to serve a 5 year term. That is the law as it currently is. Deal with it and stop whinging.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    HYUFD said:

    What both Yougov and Ipsos Mori show you is the battle is now LD and Labour for second place with the Tories clearly out in front

    What it does not say is the level of tactical voting that will take place. Remainers are not stupid.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    TGOHF said:

    Reading James Forsyth’s piece, the EU would prefer a deal to an extension.

    How does a GoNu get that without the Cons and the DUP ?

    Words two and three in your post undermine it somewhat.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,077

    TGOHF said:


    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.

    Senior judges were, until very recently (2009), appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (a cabinet minister).

    And your point is complete nonsense. If (and it's a big IF) the Supreme Court rule against the Government then it's an interesting legal point but not at all clear who it helps in even the medium term.

    Parliament did, in fact, get a key piece of legislation through before prorogation took effect, so the stakes are actually much lower today than they may have been had that legislation successfully been averted by Johnson.

    As to the longer term, the precedent affects future Governments regardless of political hue. Wiser Tories than most who frequent here (though there are a few who've realised this) have noted that the biggest thing Cummings may have done with his prorogation wheeze is hand a huge stick to Milne or anyone else to beat Parliament with in future.
    Agreed. And what's even more bizarre is that prorogation should be at Parliaments discretion, not the Monarch (on the advice of her Prime Minister). Surely this was the whole point of the English Civil War? Did Parliament win, or am I misremembering that one?
    Parliament itself legislated that proroguing, as opposed to dissolving, Parliament should remain the prerogative of the monarch under the FTPA
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.

    I don't think they plan to leave him there for 3 years, but currently he's still planning on running on the idea that he's got a deal up his sleeve that doesn't contain the downsides he said were there when he opposed TMay's deal.

    Since this is an attractive prospect to the voters and they think he's lying about it and only really has either No Deal or TMay's Deal in a bad fake moustache, they at least want him to have to show the voters what he's really holding before they let him have an election.
    so let him get on with it then. If he has something he'll have to produce it and if he hasnt he'll look a prat.
  • TGOHF said:

    Reading James Forsyth’s piece, the EU would prefer a deal to an extension.

    How does a GoNu get that without the Cons and the DUP ?

    They couldn't get that but they could get an extension with a definite outcome on a reasonable timeframe, by passing WA+referendum.

    PS I haven't read this piece but James Forsyth is probably not reliable.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The EU parliament voted today on a resolution demanding that Iran release Nazanin Zachari- Ratcliffe .

    Sadly the Brexit Party allegedly representing the UK abstained ! Words fail me , what utterly disgusting behaviour .
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    nico67 said:

    The EU parliament voted today on a resolution demanding that Iran release Nazanin Zachari- Ratcliffe .

    Sadly the Brexit Party allegedly representing the UK abstained ! Words fail me , what utterly disgusting behaviour .

    Why did they abstain?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    Ive seen short Parliaments in my lifetime, its nothing new. If the government does not function you do the sensible thing and elect a new one only the FTPA is keeping this corpse going.

    And? You’re missing the point that I’m highlighting your hypocrisy.

    The people elected this parliament in 2017 to serve a 5 year term. That is the law as it currently is. Deal with it and stop whinging.
    We elect lots of Parliaments to serve a 5 year term and they rarely do, this parliament wont go the full length either.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    The EU parliament voted today on a resolution demanding that Iran release Nazanin Zachari- Ratcliffe .

    Sadly the Brexit Party allegedly representing the UK abstained ! Words fail me , what utterly disgusting behaviour .

    Why did they abstain?
    Because they’re loathsome scum ! No other way of putting it sorry !
  • He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.

    I don't think they plan to leave him there for 3 years, but currently he's still planning on running on the idea that he's got a deal up his sleeve that doesn't contain the downsides he said were there when he opposed TMay's deal.

    Since this is an attractive prospect to the voters and they think he's lying about it and only really has either No Deal or TMay's Deal in a bad fake moustache, they at least want him to have to show the voters what he's really holding before they let him have an election.
    so let him get on with it then. If he has something he'll have to produce it and if he hasnt he'll look a prat.
    That seems to be what they're doing, with the caveat that if the thing he's lying about is that he really intends to do No Deal, they don't want to let him do that, hence the law they passed, and their trying to stay in session so they can respond if he finds another way to abuse his powers.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    nico67 said:

    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    The EU parliament voted today on a resolution demanding that Iran release Nazanin Zachari- Ratcliffe .

    Sadly the Brexit Party allegedly representing the UK abstained ! Words fail me , what utterly disgusting behaviour .

    Why did they abstain?
    Because they’re loathsome scum ! No other way of putting it sorry !
    My point was: did they intend to abstain, or did they just forget to show up?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408
    kle4 said:

    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    They could have no confidenced him and backed someone else as PM for starters. That was politically tricky so they kicked the can and taken the risk he is right.

    The court case is interesting and the anti prorogation case looks good, but parliament didnt need to wait on it. The lawfulness was secondary to it being wrong in my view and parliament could have acted on his intent.
    Yes. Parliament, even when backed up against a wall with only four days to act still messed around and tried an Act of Parliament instead of just laying down a VoNC straight away with a 'all opposed to No Deal, support this and support Ken Clarke'.

    Parliament is just as bad. They are dithering, and dithering badly. Very easy to end up with No Deal exit the rate they are going.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Maybe the EU will help Boris out by crafting some sort of face-saving compromise he can get through the HoC; they are surely heartily fed up with Brexit and want it to end somehow.

    But...

    1. Do they really want to help Boris out? - He certainly hasn't done much to win friends in Europe.
    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.
    3. Do they still see the chance, however remote, that Brexit might be abandoned, perhaps via a 2nd referendum?

    I suspect the EU will continue to hold out, let Boris hang in the wind, and wait for the inevitable GE next year.

    I may well be wrong, time will tell.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648

    He's a neutered PM and cant really do much even when Parliament is back. Fresh elections are needed, normally we would be having them now as this government cant sit out the next 3 years doing diddly squat.

    I don't think they plan to leave him there for 3 years, but currently he's still planning on running on the idea that he's got a deal up his sleeve that doesn't contain the downsides he said were there when he opposed TMay's deal.

    Since this is an attractive prospect to the voters and they think he's lying about it and only really has either No Deal or TMay's Deal in a bad fake moustache, they at least want him to have to show the voters what he's really holding before they let him have an election.
    so let him get on with it then. If he has something he'll have to produce it and if he hasnt he'll look a prat.
    That seems to be what they're doing, with the caveat that if the thing he's lying about is that he really intends to do No Deal, they don't want to let him do that, hence the law they passed, and their trying to stay in session so they can respond if he finds another way to abuse his powers.
    Only time will tell.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    You can fly on a plane via Flybe from Leeds Airport to Belfast City Airport. Airtime is one hour, with check-in time from 2hrs or less, and from getting off the plane it's about 15 minutes to pick up your bags then another 15 minutes to the city centre via taxi. It is ridiculously quick

    Or you can ferry via Stranraer/the port next to it to Belfast. This is plausible if you want to take the car. Budget about 8-9 hours for the trip.

    Or you can ferry via Holyhead (North Wales), at a similar cost in time.

    Other options are available, including bus and trains to the ports, but that's best I think. Ferries are cheap, OK, but looong. Planes are quick but more expensive. The size limits on carry-on luggage are slightly smaller for Flybe, so check your luggage fits the guidelines. They will make you put it in the hold if you are over.

    Belfast is a lot like Leeds, only flatter and the accents are stranger. Very much a border city: the terrestrial TV has BBC and RTE, the notes are GBP but different designs. The sectarian areas are not in the town centre but if you travel by taxi it's possible you'll end up going thru themhm, and it's as...impactful(?)...as you expect. The university buildings are quite nice, the Belfast conference centre is as you'd expect, the river is a river and the shops are shops: England chains with occasional regional variants (Easons instead of WHSmiths, for example) The architecture is good and the modern redevelopments are quite well done, avoiding the redevelop EVERYTHING mindset that hit Cardiff and Bristol, for example. There are some oddities: I still don't know if they offer tomato sauce with their chips, which quite threw me. The accent is oddly attractive on women, but not great on men. They keep playing Irish dance music, which drives me nuts. It closes around 10pm on Sundays and if there are mobile kebab shops or late-night burger bars I couldn't find them. It does have MickeyDs, tho, so if your stuck it's OK. It also has shopping centres and malls, with the resultant pizza restaurants and things. Take an umbrella.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    eristdoof said:

    kle4 said:


    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.

    It should have. Whether there is a legitimate legal interest I'll leave to the justices but one thing that does seem true is people have sought a remedy in the courts to avoid having to face some difficult political choices. Boris could have been stopped by now.
    How could "Boris have been stopped by now"?
    They could have no confidenced him and backed someone else as PM for starters. That was politically tricky so they kicked the can and taken the risk he is right.

    The court case is interesting and the anti prorogation case looks good, but parliament didnt need to wait on it. The lawfulness was secondary to it being wrong in my view and parliament could have acted on his intent.
    The case that the court has jurisdiction is pretty good. The case that it should act in this case is much thinner, not least because parliament itself has had abundant opportunity either to VONC or vote for an election under FTPA or to legislate to overrule the prorogation. Both government and parliament have behaved in cowardly and corkscrew like ways. Neither side deserves to win. maybe the poor old voter deserves a more competent parliament and government.

    If the central question becomes integrity and competence, the least tainted outfit at the moment is the LDs. If they cannot cash in on this now, it is hard to see when they can.

    As was mentioned today in court:

    * A PM could lose a VONC and yet still prorogue Parliament to prevent an alternative government being formed.

    * A PM could prorogue Parliament to prevent a bill, that looks like it was about to achieve royal assent, from passing.

    The implications for a PM having unlimited power in this area are enormous. Clarity on this area is sorely needed.
    I believe this is what Smart Alec Cummings had in mind. That is why he was so confident.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900

    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.

    If the EU state no more extensions, it'd get through - a straight deal or no-deal vote. LauraK was saying "sources" were hinting at exactly that.

    Still seems a long shot, but at least it'd get the damn thing over with.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    The EU parliament voted today on a resolution demanding that Iran release Nazanin Zachari- Ratcliffe .

    Sadly the Brexit Party allegedly representing the UK abstained ! Words fail me , what utterly disgusting behaviour .

    Why did they abstain?
    Because they’re loathsome scum ! No other way of putting it sorry !
    My point was: did they intend to abstain, or did they just forget to show up?
    They were present but couldn’t be arsed to vote .
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    You can fly on a plane via Flybe from Leeds Airport to Belfast City Airport. Airtime is one hour, with check-in time from 2hrs or less, and from getting off the plane it's about 15 minutes to pick up your bags then another 15 minutes to the city centre via taxi. It is ridiculously quick

    Or you can ferry via Stranraer/the port next to it to Belfast. This is plausible if you want to take the car. Budget about 8-9 hours for the trip.

    Or you can ferry via Holyhead (North Wales), at a similar cost in time.

    Other options are available, including bus and trains to the ports, but that's best I think. Ferries are cheap, OK, but looong. Planes are quick but more expensive. The size limits on carry-on luggage are slightly smaller for Flybe, so check your luggage fits the guidelines. They will make you put it in the hold if you are over.

    Belfast is a lot like Leeds, only flatter and the accents are stranger. Very much a border city: the terrestrial TV has BBC and RTE, the notes are GBP but different designs. The sectarian areas are not in the town centre but if you travel by taxi it's possible you'll end up going thru themhm, and it's as...impactful(?)...as you expect. The university buildings are quite nice, the Belfast conference centre is as you'd expect, the river is a river and the shops are shops: England chains with occasional regional variants (Easons instead of WHSmiths, for example) The architecture is good and the modern redevelopments are quite well done, avoiding the redevelop EVERYTHING mindset that hit Cardiff and Bristol, for example. There are some oddities: I still don't know if they offer tomato sauce with their chips, which quite threw me. The accent is oddly attractive on women, but not great on men. They keep playing Irish dance music, which drives me nuts. It closes around 10pm on Sundays and if there are mobile kebab shops or late-night burger bars I couldn't find them. It does have MickeyDs, tho, so if your stuck it's OK. It also has shopping centres and malls, with the resultant pizza restaurants and things. Take an umbrella.
    Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.