Barely a third think they’ll get timely treatment from the NHS – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.

It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.

No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.

No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.

It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else

Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.

Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures

Eabhal said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.

It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality

yay, another religion thread.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.

No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times

Please put your penis away

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

Enough of this crap

Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?

Luckyguy1983 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/

If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.

I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.

So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.

I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

In the short term, we have two options.

We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

Those are really the only two short-term options.

In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.

Yes, if we want to turn the UK into a steaming archipelago.

Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet

That sort of attitude is very 2020. Really dates you if you don't mind me saying so.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.

No they wouldn't, the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament. If Parliament refuses to dissolve for a general election it would be forced to by the army or a civil war again if Parliament raised its own army as in Stuart times

The point is, unlike you, most people in the UK aren't stuck in 1513 or 1638, and Parliament could legislate for whatever they want.

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/

If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.

I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.

So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.

I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

In the short term, we have two options.

We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

Those are really the only two short-term options.

In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

You are embarrassing

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

You are embarrassing

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/

If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.

I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.

So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.

I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

In the short term, we have two options.

We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

Those are really the only two short-term options.

In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.

My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

Enough of this crap

Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?

Er, no?

It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK

If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership

Haven't the Tories been in power since 2010?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

You are embarrassing

Still right though

No you are not as is demonstrated by posters on here

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else

Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.

Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures

Yes exactly.

So near impossible

How many times has it been amended?

Not since 1971

How many times has it been amended?

Not in my lifetime

Why not answer the question

The US constitution has been amended 27 times

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

What armed forces? About all we have left are a couple of planes, a few boats and a couple of blokes in uniform. Like everything else it has been penny-pinched and cheese-pared to nothing

We still have almost 200 000 troops, jets, tanks etc whose Commander in Chief is the Queen not Parliament. Parliament has no army under its command

You are embarrassing

Still right though

No you are not as is demonstrated by posters on here

Oh I very much am

rcs1000 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1563572047048912897

Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.

A return train ticket would have cost £98.

I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.

On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)

Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.

A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.

However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.

He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.

Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.

Invariably these clickbait articles on the scandalous waste of money on everything from travel to Wales to missed doctors' appointments depend on average fixed costs rather than marginal costs. To be fair, this is standard in most companies employing accountants to shift funny money between cost centres.

The reason it cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales is that is the daily rate of a government car and driver, even though the car and driver are already bought and paid for, and the only marginal cost is petrol and the driver's lunch. This is also why it did not really cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales. Except that it did because JRM's department will have been presented with a bill by whichever department runs the Whitehall car pool. And so it goes on.

Hang on.

There's insurance, there's depreciation, there's overtime. Plus there's the fact that JRM might be using a driver from the pool. And the fewer journeys there are by ministerial car, the fewer that are needed.

pm215 said:

Carnyx said:

Irrespective of that, it's a serious point, because so far as I am aware there is no limit to Parliament's powers. For instance, the "Glorious Revolution" which HYUFD mentioned earlier, in those very Whig-historiographical terms, basically constituted Parliament deposing the Stuart dynasty for a second time.

That they replaced them with another lot from the Continent (albeit married to James VII's daughter) doesn't change the basic principle that deposition is possible.

If you can make it stick (and avoid getting yourself strung up or run out of the country), anything is possible... And making something stick is a lot easier if you have your hands on the practical levers of power rather than the ceremonial ones.

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.

Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else

Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.

Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures

Yes exactly.

So near impossible

How many times has it been amended?

Not since 1971

How many times has it been amended?

Not in my lifetime

Why not answer the question

The US constitution has been amended 27 times

Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US

Northern_Al said:

On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.

Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.

Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!

'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?'
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments

This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:



Full policy deck here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/the-reform-partys-emergency-energy-plan/

If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.

I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?

Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.

So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.

Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.

We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.

I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.

People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.

It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.

I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.

If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.

The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.

In the short term, we have two options.

We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).

Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.

Those are really the only two short-term options.

In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.

In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.

My views on the involvement of the UK in the Ukraine conflict are well known. However, even if the UK Government had a complete about turn, it would make no difference, as Russian gas cannot get to us very easily anyway.

The fracking moratorium should end. It surely doesn't need looking into; that's already been done. If people think they can find gas and make money, have at it. The most optimistic comment I have read said they think they could be pumping gas by January.

Can the renewables contracts be renegotiated so that windmill operators don't get paid for switching off? If that were not the case, would those providers not scramble to maximise their income by providing adequate power storage?

Disagree about onshore fracking. It's a crap idea made up to make Tories feel good. The geology and the practicalities don't make sense. it's too slow and too ineffectual, and it'll wreck whole landscapes as RT so well showed yesterday (to a level I for one had not realised).

Russia Today? I certainly wouldn't trust that as an unbiased source on UK fracking.

But more seriously, if its slow, ineffectual, uneconomical, unprofitable, slim pickings, and all the other charges I've seen levelled at it over recent days, it does not need to be banned. The fact that it has been, suggests people do want to do it and make money by so doing - especially in the current market.

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.

Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.

Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready

That's not a thing Christians say, just bullying fascists who like the whole belonging thing.

Plenty of Christians still believe in hell (until the evil truly commit to Christ) and anyway he started it saying I was going there first.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else

Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.

Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures

Yes exactly.

So near impossible

How many times has it been amended?

Not since 1971

How many times has it been amended?

Not in my lifetime

Why not answer the question

The US constitution has been amended 27 times

Not once in the last 50 years and most of them in the 18th and 19th centuries before universal suffrage in the US

You're the one who adopted your usual pig-headed no-nuance position of "impossible".

You could have said "constitutions can't be overridden or amended easily, especially in a polarised political environment" but instead you decided to dig a pointless hole.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

Labour to change constitution to rule out coalition with the SNP

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19637086/labour-constitution-rule-out-snp-coalition/

Be ironic if they do that.
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.

No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2

If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.

It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.

Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?

Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.

Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.

Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?

Quite so.

On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.

Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor

It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.

It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.

Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway

I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.

No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder

To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy

Crap the armed forces are loyal to the Monarch not Parliament, or civil war

I think you will find they are loyal to the crown in parliament.

And until you accept the explicit teaching of the head of your church that Christ was an active homosexual you are doomed to an eternity in hell anyway. Enjoy.

Nope, the armed forces simply swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and their heirs and successors and to defend the Queen. Parliament is not mentioned, the government is of course Her Majesty's Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm

As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready

The Devil's gas bill is going to be ridiculous. I hope he got a lengthy fix.

Northern_Al said:

On Starmer and the SNP, the decision to rule out any formal coalition is just another step in his grim determination to win power.

Step by step, boringly slowly but very surely, Starmer and his team are anticipating each of the attack lines on Labour at the next GE and seeking to kill them stone dead well in advance. In Sturgeon's pocket? No. Return to nationalisation? No. Financially irresponsible? Not just no, but no with knobs on compared to the Tories. Unpatriotic? No, look at our flags and Starmer in military gear. Woke? No, not really (despite what some on here claim). I could go on.

Whatever one thinks of the result, it's really a pretty impressive and methodical strategy. He'll add in the policies nearer the time; for now, he's just intent on neutering the attack lines. It could well work.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

pm215 said:

Carnyx said:

Irrespective of that, it's a serious point, because so far as I am aware there is no limit to Parliament's powers. For instance, the "Glorious Revolution" which HYUFD mentioned earlier, in those very Whig-historiographical terms, basically constituted Parliament deposing the Stuart dynasty for a second time.

That they replaced them with another lot from the Continent (albeit married to James VII's daughter) doesn't change the basic principle that deposition is possible.

If you can make it stick (and avoid getting yourself strung up or run out of the country), anything is possible... And making something stick is a lot easier if you have your hands on the practical levers of power rather than the ceremonial ones.

Which, for instance, Parliament did to a considerable degree in the fixture vs Chas Stuart.

Charles Stuart could have won though and ruled by divine right, had Edgehill and Naseby gone the other way

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

Enough of this crap

Would you like to explain why there were at least 1m illegal immigrants in the UK even before the boats came along?

Er, no?

It has nothing to do with the very visual invasion now happening on our shores. With Albanian gangsters ADVERTISING "safe boat trips" to the UK

If Liz Truss needs a boost - and she does - she needs to sort this out on Day 3 of her premiership

How?

it's tricky. I'd say: withdraw from the ECHR, change the laws so stupid liberal lawyers can fuck off, start the flights to Rwanda, and make sure you deport A LOT to Rwanda, and make sure some Albanians are on the flights

I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.

And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.

So even worse than normal Festival time? I remember the streets having to be hosed down after clearing of litter, junk and general theatrical crap as I walked to my office in the morning in August

Friends just back from the fringe tell me Edinburgh stinks.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Fpt on cricket (sorry @Cyclefree )

But in general cricket is thriving. The Indian Premier League is one of the richest, and most watched sports leagues in the world. I’ve just been reading the stats. Incredible sums

It can only be good for cricket that money is flooding in. Yes it will change the sport but this means sport will survive and prosper and attract young kids, creating the stars of the future

Eg I’ve realised that the IPL money could save West Indian cricket. As we know windies cricket has been on a long downwards slope and many Caribbean boys are playing basketball and looking at the NBA

With the money you can now make in cricket (without having to be 7 foot tall) they will surely return to their first native sport: cricket

The money means cricket will expand globally, as well

https://www.economist.com/culture/2022/08/26/the-footballisation-of-cricket

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/20/cricket-looks-set-to-become-a-global-game


I adore cricket. This summer has reminded me of that. It’s great that it prospers

And I am happy that you enjoy it!

Cricket is hugely civilising. It is also highly cerebral. The “chess of physical sports”. It is great for Homo sapiens if it is becoming a dominant global sport

Also YAY ENGLISH SPORTS RULE THE WORLD

Cricket is highly boring and tedious, especially the five day version. That's why hardly anyone outside the Commonwealth plays it.

Leon said:

I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions

Enough of this crap