Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to BoJo’s woes it’s Corbyn not the PM who’ll decide whe

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to BoJo’s woes it’s Corbyn not the PM who’ll decide when there’ll be an election

The Fixed-term Employment Act was the most lasting constitutional change to come out of the 2010 to 2015 Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition.

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    First!
  • FPT

    Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.

    The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.

    Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)

    I'm not quibbling with the judgment. But I think the Supreme Court could have reached the same conclusion as the English [not UK] High Court and written just as eminently sensible and logical conclusion.

    It is one of those issues where because the facts are largely obscure you can piece together a few logical points on either side, then build up to a conclusion that is quite clear and concise and logical. However if you'd chosen a few other points, a bit of a different emphasis elsewhere, then you could have come to just as clear, just as concise, just as logical a conclusion but the other way.

    In a way its a bit like the famous push polling joke in Yes, Minister. What came forth before, all entirely logical, is what shapes the conclusion at the end. By the time you reach the conclusion there is only one logical conclusion - but had you put forth different points [which they could have] they could reach a different conclusion at the end.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

    The High Court and the Supreme Court both did their job. Neither should be criticised.

    Nor does this make us like America. If a majority in the Commons ever don't like a Supreme Court decision they can change the law. Problem solved.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    'Fixed term employment act' is a glorious typo in the circumstances, Mike. Don't change it.
  • Typo fixed
  • I assumed it was a deliberate typo, given the bill’s effect is to leave PMs in place long past the time they would have been given marching orders in the private sector.
  • The FTPA is a rubbish piece of legislation because the playing field is not level but stacked against the Executive and gives rise to zombie government kept in place by MPs that discredit the institution of parliamentary democracy by so doing.

    If oppositions are able to force a GE relying on a simple majority of votes, via a VONC with a 14 day cooling off period, why is it that sitting Governments are required to operate to a much higher bar - a 2/3rds majority of all votes with abstentions counting as votes against?

    Governments should be able to bring a motion to hold a GE also requiring only a simple majority, which if passed should give rise to a 14 day period during which the government must step down if any succeeding government can command a vote of confidence but which otherwise leads to a GE being called after 14 days. Simple and balanced.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    edited September 2019

    FPT

    Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.

    The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.

    Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)

    I'm not quibbling with the judgment. But I think the Supreme Court could have reached the same conclusion as the English [not UK] High Court and written just as eminently sensible and logical conclusion.

    It is one of those issues where because the facts are largely obscure you can piece together a few logical points on either side, then build up to a conclusion that is quite clear and concise and logical. However if you'd chosen a few other points, a bit of a different emphasis elsewhere, then you could have come to just as clear, just as concise, just as logical a conclusion but the other way.

    In a way its a bit like the famous push polling joke in Yes, Minister. What came forth before, all entirely logical, is what shapes the conclusion at the end. By the time you reach the conclusion there is only one logical conclusion - but had you put forth different points [which they could have] they could reach a different conclusion at the end.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

    The High Court and the Supreme Court both did their job. Neither should be criticised.

    Nor does this make us like America. If a majority in the Commons ever don't like a Supreme Court decision they can change the law. Problem solved.
    Thanks Philip.

    Yes, I suppose it's a bit like the VAR system. Anything that gets that far is by definition a close call and it depends how you see it. As a former referee I can sympathise with this. When you are on the pitch, you do quite literally perceive things differently, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

    I agree with you about the America comparison. Furthermore, the judgement made clear that the circumstances it was considering were exceptional so it is unlikely we will see a plethora of similar challenges, as Byronic and some others seem to imagine.
  • Government resigns pre-31/10.

    Corbyn made PM purely for long enough to sign Labour's death warrant by submitting the extension request.

    GE follows.

    All to Cummings timetable.
  • The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.
  • Typo fixed

    Too late. Fixed Term Employment Act wont be forgotten on PB for some time.
  • On topic: PMs without majorities shouldn't be able to call a General Election if there is an alternative PM who can command a majority in waiting. In that case the alternative should become the PM and there's thus no need for an election.

    PMs without majorities should be able to call a General Election if there's no alternative PM in waiting who can command a majority.

    That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,586
    edited September 2019
    FPT

    Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.

    As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.

    So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries? ;)
    Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi

    So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Depends if you think blocking an election again and again helps Jezza.

    No sign of that in the polls.
  • In a few weeks/months, they may reverse positions and Labour want an election but Johnson doesn't!
  • The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.
  • To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
  • Absolutely Mike - the FTPA is a triumph, one of Cameron/Clegg's greatest legacies. Just because some strange people have a dictator fetish about Boris Johnson at the moment it doesn't mean that our election dates should be the plaything of a single party hack with an agenda.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    In a few weeks/months, they may reverse positions and Labour want an election but Johnson doesn't!

    Has Farage made a mistake today calling for Boris to resign ? Rumblings..
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    In a few weeks/months, they may reverse positions and Labour want an election but Johnson doesn't!

    It won't be upto Johnson. He will be VoNCed when the time comes.
  • TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    The organisations that monitor judicial fairness, other governments, businesses.

    As your fellow leaver Sandpit pointed out a lot of foreign companies like to have their contracts governed under English & Welsh law because they know our judiciary is fair and impartial and doesn't bow to government and media pressure.
  • On topic: PMs without majorities shouldn't be able to call a General Election if there is an alternative PM who can command a majority in waiting. In that case the alternative should become the PM and there's thus no need for an election.

    PMs without majorities should be able to call a General Election if there's no alternative PM in waiting who can command a majority.

    That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.

    Indeed, we posted the same point independently of one another.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    [fpt for Gardenwalker]



    I presume you are predicting the Brexit end-state, and not the state of play on Hallowe'en 2019. If so, there's a problem. What is the end-state? Will we ever get there?

    Imagine, say, that Revoke somehow won out. And we never left. Would that be the end state? Clearly not, because then there would be pressure for the Tories to put leave-without-a-referendum in their next manifesto, and at some point they would win, and out we go. And on we go.

    Brexit is likely to last the rest of our lives, and beyond. It will become part of the furniture. It will never go away. I know this is cheering.

    Anyway, I have to go do my Blue Steel, so here's my prediction, for the Brexit state of play by the end of December 2021.

    No Deal: 10%
    Deal: 30%
    Remain (probably after a plebiscite): 40%
    Some kind of limbo (e.g. endless extensions): 15%
    Black swan (an intervening war rendering Brexit irrelevant?): 5%


    Ta-ra.
  • Absolutely Mike - the FTPA is a triumph, one of Cameron/Clegg's greatest legacies. Just because some strange people have a dictator fetish about Boris Johnson at the moment it doesn't mean that our election dates should be the plaything of a single party hack with an agenda.

    Indeed...the FTPA should instead be the plaything of hundreds of remainer MPs who will do anything to avoid implementing the referendum result.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
  • The FTPA is a rubbish piece of legislation because the playing field is not level but stacked against the Executive and gives rise to zombie government kept in place by MPs that discredit the institution of parliamentary democracy by so doing.

    If oppositions are able to force a GE relying on a simple majority of votes, via a VONC with a 14 day cooling off period, why is it that sitting Governments are required to operate to a much higher bar - a 2/3rds majority of all votes with abstentions counting as votes against?

    Governments should be able to bring a motion to hold a GE also requiring only a simple majority, which if passed should give rise to a 14 day period during which the government must step down if any succeeding government can command a vote of confidence but which otherwise leads to a GE being called after 14 days. Simple and balanced.

    I don't think it should even take a simple majority for the government to trigger the 14 day period, since the whole point has always been the government should have a majority and if there isn't then there should be an election. The government would be triggering an election because it recognises it has no majority - which was sufficient in the past.

    The government should simply be able to table a motion that there should be a general election and then that will occur automatically after 14 days unless a majority of the Commons gives confidence to a PM who says there should not be an election.

    If Corbyn can command a majority he should do so from Downing Street.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    FFS, Stewart Jackson ranting on the telly.

    Not ready for that at this hour...
  • TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?

    Member of world class elite decides he is world class.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Byronic said:

    [fpt for Gardenwalker]



    I presume you are predicting the Brexit end-state, and not the state of play on Hallowe'en 2019. If so, there's a problem. What is the end-state? Will we ever get there?

    Imagine, say, that Revoke somehow won out. And we never left. Would that be the end state? Clearly not, because then there would be pressure for the Tories to put leave-without-a-referendum in their next manifesto, and at some point they would win, and out we go. And on we go.

    Brexit is likely to last the rest of our lives, and beyond. It will become part of the furniture. It will never go away. I know this is cheering.

    Anyway, I have to go do my Blue Steel, so here's my prediction, for the Brexit state of play by the end of December 2021.

    No Deal: 10%
    Deal: 30%
    Remain (probably after a plebiscite): 40%
    Some kind of limbo (e.g. endless extensions): 15%
    Black swan (an intervening war rendering Brexit irrelevant?): 5%


    Ta-ra.

    Exit in 2025 by majority Tory-Brexit Gov't coupon ticket after "confirmatory referendum" on Corbyn's deal ?
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
  • The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    The FTPA is a rubbish piece of legislation because the playing field is not level but stacked against the Executive and gives rise to zombie government kept in place by MPs that discredit the institution of parliamentary democracy by so doing.

    If oppositions are able to force a GE relying on a simple majority of votes, via a VONC with a 14 day cooling off period, why is it that sitting Governments are required to operate to a much higher bar - a 2/3rds majority of all votes with abstentions counting as votes against?

    Governments should be able to bring a motion to hold a GE also requiring only a simple majority, which if passed should give rise to a 14 day period during which the government must step down if any succeeding government can command a vote of confidence but which otherwise leads to a GE being called after 14 days. Simple and balanced.

    I don't think it should even take a simple majority for the government to trigger the 14 day period, since the whole point has always been the government should have a majority and if there isn't then there should be an election. The government would be triggering an election because it recognises it has no majority - which was sufficient in the past.

    The government should simply be able to table a motion that there should be a general election and then that will occur automatically after 14 days unless a majority of the Commons gives confidence to a PM who says there should not be an election.

    If Corbyn can command a majority he should do so from Downing Street.
    So a government only two years into its term and leads in the polls by 25% should be allowed to call an election because it suits them ? Why ?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF2 said:

    In a few weeks/months, they may reverse positions and Labour want an election but Johnson doesn't!

    Has Farage made a mistake today calling for Boris to resign ? Rumblings..
    Interestingly this morning on Radio 5 Live he seemed to be rowing back from that, back on his old bandwagon of saying that there should be an election pact so long as Boris backs No Deal.

    The presenter pressed him on the point of what if there is an election after 31 October, that surely Boris has done all he can to try and prevent an extension and interestingly Farage agreed with that and said that what matters is a "clean break Brexit".

    I don't think a delay will cause a collapse in Tory votes that Remainers are waiting for. It will be clear who is responsible for the delay.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    Because the referendum result has not been enacted after 3 years. Trust has broken down - unsurprisingly.

  • TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
  • The FTPA is a rubbish piece of legislation because the playing field is not level but stacked against the Executive and gives rise to zombie government kept in place by MPs that discredit the institution of parliamentary democracy by so doing.

    If oppositions are able to force a GE relying on a simple majority of votes, via a VONC with a 14 day cooling off period, why is it that sitting Governments are required to operate to a much higher bar - a 2/3rds majority of all votes with abstentions counting as votes against?

    Governments should be able to bring a motion to hold a GE also requiring only a simple majority, which if passed should give rise to a 14 day period during which the government must step down if any succeeding government can command a vote of confidence but which otherwise leads to a GE being called after 14 days. Simple and balanced.

    I don't think it should even take a simple majority for the government to trigger the 14 day period, since the whole point has always been the government should have a majority and if there isn't then there should be an election. The government would be triggering an election because it recognises it has no majority - which was sufficient in the past.

    The government should simply be able to table a motion that there should be a general election and then that will occur automatically after 14 days unless a majority of the Commons gives confidence to a PM who says there should not be an election.

    If Corbyn can command a majority he should do so from Downing Street.
    So a government only two years into its term and leads in the polls by 25% should be allowed to call an election because it suits them ? Why ?
    Only if there is no alternative majority in the Commons.

  • The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    I'm not happy with it either but the polling is clear.

    Remainers have put the judiciary in an impossible position but then, as Bercow has shown, nothing is sacred in the ideological fight to keep the EU.
  • TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Not to mention the police.

    But as someone mentioned upthread, our courts *are* used by folks from around the world. That is unique.

    So actually, there are some grounds for calling our most senior judges “world class”.
  • Absolutely Mike - the FTPA is a triumph, one of Cameron/Clegg's greatest legacies. Just because some strange people have a dictator fetish about Boris Johnson at the moment it doesn't mean that our election dates should be the plaything of a single party hack with an agenda.

    Indeed...the FTPA should instead be the plaything of hundreds of remainer MPs who will do anything to avoid implementing the referendum result.
    The referendum result be be enacted eventually, but it will be at the time and in the form of our elected representatives' choosing. Of course, if everyone is champing at the bit for No Deal, then Nigel will win a landslide in a year or so and can bring it about. Good luck to him.
  • On topic: I think the accepted wisdom that an opposition will vote for an election remains true in general. The particular deadline of an October 31st crash-out is wholly exceptional.
  • To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.

    Boris is the Tory Jeremy Corbyn. Every criticism made of Corbyn by CCHQ applies (mutatis mutandis) equally to Boris. But it is worse because Boris is early-era Corbyn before David Cameron's mum made him buy a new suit and get his hair cut.
  • TGOHF2 said:

    The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    Because the referendum result has not been enacted after 3 years. Trust has broken down - unsurprisingly.

    Trust of what, though? The government said the prorogue had nothing to do with Brexit. However, it could not explain why it was necessary to close Parliament down for five weeks.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,096
    Byronic said:

    [fpt for Gardenwalker]



    I presume you are predicting the Brexit end-state, and not the state of play on Hallowe'en 2019. If so, there's a problem. What is the end-state? Will we ever get there?

    Imagine, say, that Revoke somehow won out. And we never left. Would that be the end state? Clearly not, because then there would be pressure for the Tories to put leave-without-a-referendum in their next manifesto, and at some point they would win, and out we go. And on we go.

    Brexit is likely to last the rest of our lives, and beyond. It will become part of the furniture. It will never go away. I know this is cheering.

    Anyway, I have to go do my Blue Steel, so here's my prediction, for the Brexit state of play by the end of December 2021.

    No Deal: 10%
    Deal: 30%
    Remain (probably after a plebiscite): 40%
    Some kind of limbo (e.g. endless extensions): 15%
    Black swan (an intervening war rendering Brexit irrelevant?): 5%


    Ta-ra.

    'do my IRBM that was scrapped decades ago' - are we missing something?
  • Byronic said:

    [fpt for Gardenwalker]



    I presume you are predicting the Brexit end-state, and not the state of play on Hallowe'en 2019. If so, there's a problem. What is the end-state? Will we ever get there?

    Imagine, say, that Revoke somehow won out. And we never left. Would that be the end state? Clearly not, because then there would be pressure for the Tories to put leave-without-a-referendum in their next manifesto, and at some point they would win, and out we go. And on we go.

    Brexit is likely to last the rest of our lives, and beyond. It will become part of the furniture. It will never go away. I know this is cheering.

    Anyway, I have to go do my Blue Steel, so here's my prediction, for the Brexit state of play by the end of December 2021.

    No Deal: 10%
    Deal: 30%
    Remain (probably after a plebiscite): 40%
    Some kind of limbo (e.g. endless extensions): 15%
    Black swan (an intervening war rendering Brexit irrelevant?): 5%


    Ta-ra.

    Yeah, we are pretty much in the sam place but I think the chances of Deal higher and 2021 limbo lower.

    I assume though - perhaps too much - that by the time we finally reach an “end state”, whether Brexit or Remain, we will be glad to turn the page and move on to other divisive shit like non-binary gender identification.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,621

    The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    Indeed the public do not support prorogation when polled, and thought the reasons given were spurious, even the Tory voters.

    I don't get the impression of anger with the judges, and neither does there seem to be enthusiasm for another GE.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    edited September 2019

    TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
    We work with clients from all over the world and I can confirm that that’s the case in my experience. English Law is seen as the gold standard, rightly or wrongly.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    edited September 2019

    TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
    Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Where I start to worry is something is only true until it isn't.

    If our judiciary WERE to ever be politicised, biased whatever, how would you identify that? The side they were on would obviously claim they were not biased, whereas the aggrieved party would claim they are.

    Are we to go on trust and trust alone? Are the judiciary EVER above criticism? Are we to take their word as gospel without EVER disagreeing? And I don't mean until they do something you personally don't like.....

  • The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    I'm not happy with it either but the polling is clear.

    Remainers have put the judiciary in an impossible position but then, as Bercow has shown, nothing is sacred in the ideological fight to keep the EU.

    The government put the judiciary in the position it is in by breaking the law.

  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    TGOHF2 said:

    The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    Because the referendum result has not been enacted after 3 years. Trust has broken down - unsurprisingly.

    Trust of what, though? The government said the prorogue had nothing to do with Brexit. However, it could not explain why it was necessary to close Parliament down for five weeks.

    Trust in the motives of politicians , civil servants, judges, journalists, broadcasters.

    Whether you agree with it or not it’s happening.
  • The FTPA is a rubbish piece of legislation because the playing field is not level but stacked against the Executive and gives rise to zombie government kept in place by MPs that discredit the institution of parliamentary democracy by so doing.

    If oppositions are able to force a GE relying on a simple majority of votes, via a VONC with a 14 day cooling off period, why is it that sitting Governments are required to operate to a much higher bar - a 2/3rds majority of all votes with abstentions counting as votes against?

    Governments should be able to bring a motion to hold a GE also requiring only a simple majority, which if passed should give rise to a 14 day period during which the government must step down if any succeeding government can command a vote of confidence but which otherwise leads to a GE being called after 14 days. Simple and balanced.

    I don't think it should even take a simple majority for the government to trigger the 14 day period, since the whole point has always been the government should have a majority and if there isn't then there should be an election. The government would be triggering an election because it recognises it has no majority - which was sufficient in the past.

    The government should simply be able to table a motion that there should be a general election and then that will occur automatically after 14 days unless a majority of the Commons gives confidence to a PM who says there should not be an election.

    If Corbyn can command a majority he should do so from Downing Street.
    Yes I can see your point and with hindsight accept it. The only change from the old arrangements then being that the opposition parties should have the opportunity to form a government within 14 days if they don't want there to be an election at a timing of the government's choosing. With a minority government, the majority opposition parties are being denied the opportunity of perpetuating a zombie government for their political advantage just as the minority government is denied the opportunity of forcing an election for political advantage. That seems fair.
  • TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Not to mention the police.

    But as someone mentioned upthread, our courts *are* used by folks from around the world. That is unique.

    So actually, there are some grounds for calling our most senior judges “world class”.
    Very rigorous, the judging exams; they're noted for their rigour.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUZNynYXzM
  • TGOHF2 said:
    Shipman is a dick.
    The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.

    That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.

    But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882

    On topic: I think the accepted wisdom that an opposition will vote for an election remains true in general. The particular deadline of an October 31st crash-out is wholly exceptional.

    Yes, we are in an exceptional situation. The prime minister doesn't have the confidence of parliament, but if parliament tries to remove him that may precipitate the very thing parliament is most afraid of - the suicidal insanity of leaving the EU without a deal.

    We'll just have to hope that the prime minister can be restrained for long enough that sanity returns to the political sphere.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited September 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    Yes, we have great judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Just look at their records:

    There's Lord Kitchin, who was recruited from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

    Or Lady Arden, ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    Or Lord Lloyd Jones, "a specialist in EU law"

    Or Lord Reed, another ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    Or Lord Kerr, who actually drafted the EU's Article 50, and deliberately made it punitive, so "it would never be used"

    Oh look, here's Lord Kerr, openly calling for a delay to Brexit and a second referendum.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    Yes, we have the best judiciary in the world. Oh yes. Absolutely impartial. Superb people, all of them. And they write so well!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304

    To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.

    Boris is the Tory Jeremy Corbyn. Every criticism made of Corbyn by CCHQ applies (mutatis mutandis) equally to Boris. But it is worse because Boris is early-era Corbyn before David Cameron's mum made him buy a new suit and get his hair cut.
    Cammo’s mum made Corbyn buy a new suit and get his haircut? I must have missed that bizarre twist among the hundreds of other crazy episodes over the past few years...
  • glwglw Posts: 8,788

    Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Where I start to worry is something is only true until it isn't.

    If our judiciary WERE to ever be politicised, biased whatever, how would you identify that? The side they were on would obviously claim they were not biased, whereas the aggrieved party would claim they are.

    It's easy, as soon as politicians start taking any interest in judicial appointments you know it has been politicised.


  • The government put the judiciary in the position it is in by breaking the law.

    I would say remainers refusing to implement the referendum result from 2016 have brought us to where we are now.

    Regardless, we are where we are, and if remainers are willing to scorch the earth in their desire to stay in the EU then there can be no surprise that the process becomes a fight to the death.

    It is sad really, and avoidable if the remainers in parliament had not hidden behind a handful of extremists to justify not voting for May's deal.

    If we could wind back the clock I suspect MV1 would sail through.
  • TGOHF2 said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.

    Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.

    Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.

    They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.

    The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?

    We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.

    Because the referendum result has not been enacted after 3 years. Trust has broken down - unsurprisingly.

    Trust of what, though? The government said the prorogue had nothing to do with Brexit. However, it could not explain why it was necessary to close Parliament down for five weeks.

    Trust in the motives of politicians , civil servants, judges, journalists, broadcasters.

    Whether you agree with it or not it’s happening.

    Yes, I agree. That said, and I may be wrong here, but I don’t recall a huge outcry about political bias from Remain supporters when the High Court issued its decision.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    TGOHF2 said:
    Hmm. We voted to leave in 2016 because some people in 2019 gloated about a Supreme Court decision about the illegal suspension of parliament?

    Has this guy taken leave of his senses?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    TGOHF2 said:

    In a few weeks/months, they may reverse positions and Labour want an election but Johnson doesn't!

    Has Farage made a mistake today calling for Boris to resign ? Rumblings..
    Interestingly this morning on Radio 5 Live he seemed to be rowing back from that, back on his old bandwagon of saying that there should be an election pact so long as Boris backs No Deal.

    The presenter pressed him on the point of what if there is an election after 31 October, that surely Boris has done all he can to try and prevent an extension and interestingly Farage agreed with that and said that what matters is a "clean break Brexit".

    I don't think a delay will cause a collapse in Tory votes that Remainers are waiting for. It will be clear who is responsible for the delay.</blockqu

    And it is more than clear who is responsible for the chaos.
  • Apparently the lead driver is a remainer who refuses to follow the traffic procedures agreed to by the majority.

    Seemingly he is known to mutter something about them being 'advisory' as he runs red lights.


  • The government put the judiciary in the position it is in by breaking the law.

    I would say remainers refusing to implement the referendum result from 2016 have brought us to where we are now.

    Regardless, we are where we are, and if remainers are willing to scorch the earth in their desire to stay in the EU then there can be no surprise that the process becomes a fight to the death.

    It is sad really, and avoidable if the remainers in parliament had not hidden behind a handful of extremists to justify not voting for May's deal.

    If we could wind back the clock I suspect MV1 would sail through.

    The ERG is not a Remain-backing organisation, neither is the DUP.
  • FPT

    Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.

    As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.

    So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries? ;)
    Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi

    So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
    Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine :) but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both :D:D
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,380

    To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.

    Boris is the Tory Jeremy Corbyn. Every criticism made of Corbyn by CCHQ applies (mutatis mutandis) equally to Boris. But it is worse because Boris is early-era Corbyn before David Cameron's mum made him buy a new suit and get his hair cut.
    Cammo’s mum made Corbyn buy a new suit and get his haircut? I must have missed that bizarre twist among the hundreds of other crazy episodes over the past few years...
    You must've, because Corbyn even thanked Cameron for his mum's advice.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Byronic said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    Yes, we have great judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Just look at their records:

    There's Lord Kitchin, who was recruited from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

    Or Lady Arden, ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    Or Lord Lloyd Jones, "a specialist in EU law"

    Or Lord Reed, another ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    Or Lord Kerr, who actually drafted the EU's Article 50, and deliberately made it punitive, so "it would never be used"

    Oh look, here's Lord Kerr, openly calling for a delay to Brexit and a second referendum.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    Yes, we have the best judiciary in the world. Oh yes. Absolutely impartial. Superb people, all of them. And they write so well!
    Pitiful and contemptible.
  • Byronic said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    Yes, we have great judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Just look at their records:

    There's Lord Kitchin, who was recruited from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

    Or Lady Arden, ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    Or Lord Lloyd Jones, "a specialist in EU law"

    Or Lord Reed, another ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    Or Lord Kerr, who actually drafted the EU's Article 50, and deliberately made it punitive, so "it would never be used"

    Oh look, here's Lord Kerr, openly calling for a delay to Brexit and a second referendum.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    Yes, we have the best judiciary in the world. Oh yes. Absolutely impartial. Superb people, all of them. And they write so well!

    Neither the ECHR nor the EPO is an EU institution.

  • CaptainBuzzkillCaptainBuzzkill Posts: 335
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:


    Yes, we have great judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Just look at their records:

    There's Lord Kitchin, who was recruited from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

    Or Lady Arden, ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    Or Lord Lloyd Jones, "a specialist in EU law"

    Or Lord Reed, another ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    Or Lord Kerr, who actually drafted the EU's Article 50, and deliberately made it punitive, so "it would never be used"

    Oh look, here's Lord Kerr, openly calling for a delay to Brexit and a second referendum.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    Yes, we have the best judiciary in the world. Oh yes. Absolutely impartial. Superb people, all of them. And they write so well!


    This has got to be a wind up?
  • To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.

    Boris is the Tory Jeremy Corbyn. Every criticism made of Corbyn by CCHQ applies (mutatis mutandis) equally to Boris. But it is worse because Boris is early-era Corbyn before David Cameron's mum made him buy a new suit and get his hair cut.
    Cammo’s mum made Corbyn buy a new suit and get his haircut? I must have missed that bizarre twist among the hundreds of other crazy episodes over the past few years...
    You must've, because Corbyn even thanked Cameron for his mum's advice.
    I even did a thread on it.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/23/this-could-have-been-the-moment-that-cameron-and-his-mother-ensured-corbyn-would-one-day-become-pm/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    The organisations that monitor judicial fairness, other governments, businesses.

    As your fellow leaver Sandpit pointed out a lot of foreign companies like to have their contracts governed under English & Welsh law because they know our judiciary is fair and impartial and doesn't bow to government and media pressure.
    Yep, happens all the time out here.

    Say a Saudi company and an Omani company wish to collaborate on a project in the UAE, no-one wants the jurisdiction to be in a place where the other side might have a better chance of winning. A lot of companies also have some state ownership which complicates things further. It makes sense for them all to agree to, in the event of dispute, find a genuinely impartial court.

    There’s even a financial free zone in Dubai (DIFC) which operates entirely under English law and is staffed by English judges. Something like 90% of the overseas investment in the entire GCC region goes through DIFC and their English courts.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited September 2019
    Deleted because I am idiot.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:


    Yes, we have great judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Just look at their records:

    There's Lord Kitchin, who was recruited from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office.

    Or Lady Arden, ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

    Or Lord Lloyd Jones, "a specialist in EU law"

    Or Lord Reed, another ad hoc UK judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    Or Lord Kerr, who actually drafted the EU's Article 50, and deliberately made it punitive, so "it would never be used"

    Oh look, here's Lord Kerr, openly calling for a delay to Brexit and a second referendum.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    Yes, we have the best judiciary in the world. Oh yes. Absolutely impartial. Superb people, all of them. And they write so well!


    This has got to be a wind up?
    Nope. It's true.
  • Revolting. I expect Letts is a real fucking oil painting.

    Brenda Hale is a great woman, risen to the top of the legal profession from a state school in Yorkshire. Wears her brilliance lightly too, I saw her speaking at a college event and she came across as very down to earth. Her judgement yesterday is a model of plain English common sense. The attacks on her from all these men-children, throwing their toys out of their perambulator because for once they didn't get what they wanted, is a sight to behold. Nothing angers them quite as much as a woman saying No.
  • Fucking hell Byronic is thick as mince

    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is this one

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore

    This is the Lord Kerr who wrote article 50

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Actually, I might be wrong.
  • TGOHF2 said:
    Shipman is a dick.
    The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.

    That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.

    But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
    Also the implication that if the decision had gone 11-0 in favour of HMG/Boris that Leavers would be displaying emollient, conciliatory understanding is fcuking hilarious. Since 23/06/16 they've only had 2 modes, 'haha, giruy Libtard Remaniac scum' or whining about how said Remaniac scum are denying them their precious. Perhaps the likes of Shipman should be examining their own contribution to the low level of discourse.
  • Government resigns pre-31/10.

    Corbyn made PM purely for long enough to sign Labour's death warrant by submitting the extension request.

    GE follows.

    All to Cummings timetable.

    Compare to Johnson's pledges in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

    Deliver Brexit by 31/10 - Article 50 extended - FAILED.
    Unite the Conservative Party (and the country) - Two former Chancellors with the whip withdrawn and 21 MPs in total kicked out - FAILED.
    Defeat Jeremy Corbyn and keep him out of Number 10 - Resign to make way for Corbyn to enter Number 10 - FAILED.

    A complete DUD, making Johnson a serial loser as well as a serial liar.

    Would Conservative MPs have backed Johnson if that had been the plan presented to them in June? I think not.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093

    On topic: I think the accepted wisdom that an opposition will vote for an election remains true in general. The particular deadline of an October 31st crash-out is wholly exceptional.

    The opposition are standing by the 31 Oct date because they think it will change the polling. That wider point won't be exceptional.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Fucking hell Byronic is thick as mince

    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is this one

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore

    This is the Lord Kerr who wrote article 50

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    Yes. Apologies. I got into a caffeine fuelled rant-o-mode.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426

    TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
    Commenting as someone outside the UK and has seen quite a few health systems close up:
    The NHS is great for two things.
    i) The cost for equivalent treatments is very good value. This is a direct result of central funding and pricing.
    ii) The last thing you want to have to worry about when you are ill is sorting out the finances. With the NHS all you need to do is to have a UK address. There are no questions about how you are going to pay. There is no need to pay upfront and claim the mony back from the insurer*, and there is no need to pass the bill onto the insurer*, and there is no need to hope that the insurer agrees to pay.

    *insurer could be public or private.

    One other benefit with the NHS system is that almost all top consultant jobs are in the NHS, so anyone who wants to do research and push medicine/surgery forwards, needs to work at least 50% in the NHS.
  • I think opposition parties need to be careful. Lib dem leader on sky making it sound want to keep taking over parliament, but not a general election. Doesnt look good.
  • Government resigns pre-31/10.

    Corbyn made PM purely for long enough to sign Labour's death warrant by submitting the extension request.

    GE follows.

    All to Cummings timetable.

    Compare to Johnson's pledges in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

    Deliver Brexit by 31/10 - Article 50 extended - FAILED.
    Unite the Conservative Party (and the country) - Two former Chancellors with the whip withdrawn and 21 MPs in total kicked out - FAILED.
    Defeat Jeremy Corbyn and keep him out of Number 10 - Resign to make way for Corbyn to enter Number 10 - FAILED.

    A complete DUD, making Johnson a serial loser as well as a serial liar.

    Would Conservative MPs have backed Johnson if that had been the plan presented to them in June? I think not.
    None of your post relates to where we are now.

    And we all know that if Corbyn ends up being the one requesting the A50 extension prior to the GE Labour will be annihilated at the ballot box.

  • Byronic said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
    Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Where I start to worry is something is only true until it isn't.

    If our judiciary WERE to ever be politicised, biased whatever, how would you identify that? The side they were on would obviously claim they were not biased, whereas the aggrieved party would claim they are.

    Are we to go on trust and trust alone? Are the judiciary EVER above criticism? Are we to take their word as gospel without EVER disagreeing? And I don't mean until they do something you personally don't like.....
    This will disabuse you of any belief in our impartial judiciary.

    Lord Kerr actually wrote Article 50, and (in his own words) deliberately made it so tough and punishing, it would, he thought, never be used except by some fascist state in Eastern Europe,

    That same Lord Kerr is on the Supreme Court.

    That same Lord Kerr is quite happy to write articles in the Guardian calling for a second referendum, and a delay to Brexit (so it can be reversed)

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    What were the chances of Lord Kerr coming down with a judgement that helped Boris Johnson and the government?

    Our judges have become political, because they have decided to BE political, by writing political polemics and anti-Brexit screeds. They will therefore be judged politically, and they are Not Sound. Get rid of them and elect their successors.

    If we are to have a revolution, let us do it properly.
    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is a different Lord Kerr from the one who wrote Article 50.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore


    Please withdraw the nonsense you have written above.
  • Byronic said:

    Fucking hell Byronic is thick as mince

    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is this one

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore

    This is the Lord Kerr who wrote article 50

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    Yes. Apologies. I got into a caffeine fuelled rant-o-mode.
    Embarrassing.

    I think you should never post on Brexit or the law ever again.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
    Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.

    You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
    As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
    Except that it's true of our judicmmercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
    Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Where I start to worry is something is only true until it isn't.

    If our judiciary WERE to ever be politicised, biased whatever, how would you identify that? The side they were on would obviously claim they were not biased, whereas the aggrieved party would claim they are.

    Are we to go on trust and trust alone? Are the judiciary EVER above criticism? Are we to take their word as gospel without EVER disagreeing? And I don't mean until they do something you personally don't like.....
    This will disabuse you of any belief in our impartial judiciary.

    Lord Kerr actually wrote Article 50, and (in his own words) deliberately made it so tough and punishing, it would, he thought, never be used except by some fascist state in Eastern Europe,

    That same Lord Kerr is on the Supreme Court.

    That same Lord Kerr is quite happy to write articles in the Guardian calling for a second referendum, and a delay to Brexit (so it can be reversed)

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state

    What were the chances of Lord Kerr coming down with a judgement that helped Boris Johnson and the government?

    Our judges have become political, because they have decided to BE political, by writing political polemics and anti-Brexit screeds. They will therefore be judged politically, and they are Not Sound. Get rid of them and elect their successors.

    If we are to have a revolution, let us do it properly.
    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is a different Lord Kerr from the one who wrote Article 50.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore


    Please withdraw the nonsense you have written above.
    I just did.
  • On topic: I think the accepted wisdom that an opposition will vote for an election remains true in general. The particular deadline of an October 31st crash-out is wholly exceptional.

    It is probably the only scenario where the FTPA is helpful, but I think all previous stages in the saga would have been improved by its absence. We probably would have had an election much earlier in the year.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Fucking hell Byronic is thick as mince

    The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is this one

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore

    This is the Lord Kerr who wrote article 50

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    Yes. Apologies. I got into a caffeine fuelled rant-o-mode.
    Embarrassing.

    I think you should never post on Brexit or the law ever again.
    I will post what I like (and you are free to moderate me, ban me, whatever)

    The Supreme Court have politicised themselves and political scrutiny is coming their way.

  • The Lord Kerr on the Supreme Court is a different Lord Kerr from the one who wrote Article 50.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Kinlochard

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore


    Please withdraw the nonsense you have written above.


    Ah, it was a different Lord Baron who has done his bit to carry on the good work of the other Lord Baron who tried to make it impossible to leave the EU.

    By my reckoning they both should have been called Wayne.


  • Embarrassing.

    I think you should never post on Brexit or the law ever again.

    Go Remainers!

    Silencing dissenting voices on Brexit since 2016.
  • To be honest, my brain has never been able to process the fact that Johnson is PM. We've had PMs that I've disagreed with or disliked before but I've never had any trouble thinking of them as PM as they've looked and sounded the part. With Johnson though... well you might as well tell me that Mr Blobby or Zippy from Rainbow are PM as they'd feel no less ridiculous to my mind. I'm not saying that I challenge Johnson's legitimacy as PM but just that my brain literally struggles to process the idea that it's happened.

    Boris is the Tory Jeremy Corbyn. Every criticism made of Corbyn by CCHQ applies (mutatis mutandis) equally to Boris. But it is worse because Boris is early-era Corbyn before David Cameron's mum made him buy a new suit and get his hair cut.
    Cammo’s mum made Corbyn buy a new suit and get his haircut? I must have missed that bizarre twist among the hundreds of other crazy episodes over the past few years...
    The strange thing is that I'm not even sure that a suit suits him (no pun intended). He probably looked better in the weird jackets that he used to wear as a backbencher.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    On topic: PMs without majorities shouldn't be able to call a General Election if there is an alternative PM who can command a majority in waiting. In that case the alternative should become the PM and there's thus no need for an election.

    PMs without majorities should be able to call a General Election if there's no alternative PM in waiting who can command a majority.

    That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.

    A reasonable argument - and the basis for a reasonable (and simple) amendment to the FTPA once there is a government with a stable majority.

    Meanwhile... politics.

  • Embarrassing.

    I think you should never post on Brexit or the law ever again.

    Go Remainers!

    Silencing dissenting voices on Brexit since 2016.
    Byronic voted Remain.
This discussion has been closed.