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
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
Theft, adultery, false witness, coveting/greed ... sure, our Parliament is just fine as it is today.
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
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 3D chess.
Continuing the theme: Chess has 3 time controls - Classical/Quickplay/Blitz. Cricket has 3 time controls - Test/One day/T20.
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
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
Of course:
Now, would it be a preferred media device? Would it be as easy to read PB as some other form factors?
Nope. But it would be fine for note taking, email replying, to do list sorting, spreadsheet wrangling, light web browsing, and the like.
The screen would be the same size (roughly) as two large phones end-to-end. You could use the complete width for a web site, or you could have it tiled with two or three apps in different vertical panes. Perhaps Slack on the left, email on the right, and PB in the middle. Modern screens are so high resolution, you be amazed what you could fit in there.
Yes, but a small high width-to-height rectangular display is *not* good for GUIs. They are reasonable for CLIs.
The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.
What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.
Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
It's 3/4 of the States and the President has no veto power.
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.
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
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
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
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
You do talk such tripe
Yes well at least I understand our system of government unlike you
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?
Could he also confirm if he wishes to see all illegal immigrants expelled from the UK and how this would happen?
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
Of course:
Now, would it be a preferred media device? Would it be as easy to read PB as some other form factors?
Nope. But it would be fine for note taking, email replying, to do list sorting, spreadsheet wrangling, light web browsing, and the like.
The screen would be the same size (roughly) as two large phones end-to-end. You could use the complete width for a web site, or you could have it tiled with two or three apps in different vertical panes. Perhaps Slack on the left, email on the right, and PB in the middle. Modern screens are so high resolution, you be amazed what you could fit in there.
Yes, but a small high width-to-height rectangular display is *not* good for GUIs. They are reasonable for CLIs.
The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.
What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.
Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...
Getting stuff manufactured these days is not difficult, so you don't need it to have a mass market, just a sensible niche.
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Not unless the Monarch also signs it.
If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
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.
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
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.
Not unless the Monarch also signs it.
If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
Parliament can legislate to erase the Monarchy and its role in signing laws. Simple as that.
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
227 tanks, and 112K troops. You're very out of date.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Not unless the Monarch also signs it.
If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
Parliament can legislate to erase the Monarchy and its role in signing laws. Simple as that.
No it can't as the Monarch would veto it and it has no means to enforce it as the armed forces take an oath of loyalty to the Monarch not Parliament.
Now of course the Monarch would never veto legislation passed by Parliament unless it was something as evil as legalising murder which was also not a manifesto commitment otherwise it might lead to another civil war but legally they could
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
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
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:
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?
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
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
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.
In my view five-day Test cricket is the finest of all sports. The extended playing time gives room for the drama of a close contest to arise naturally and gradually, just as many of the best foods or drinks involve a long maturing time to develop the depths of flavour that mark them out.
Cricket is, I believe, unique in all sports in having two timescales that run in parallel. It has a batting timescale, which is relatively slow, in that the batters must concentrate and accumulate over the course of an innings - even in T20 there are 120 balls to be played. And then it has a bowling timescale, which can be much faster, where all ten wickets in an innings may fall extremely quickly, and a single wicket, in a single ball, can turn a match on its head.
Added to this you have additional factors provided by the changing condition of the ball and pitch, which arguably add two more timescales to a match, particularly a first-class match played over several days.
I enjoy watching a game of football, and other sports also have their charms, but nothing compares with cricket. It is a great gift.
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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).
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
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?
They have. And they have visibly failed here. If this continues - and why should it not? indeed, why should it not get worse? - it is a major problem for them. Of course Labour would not do any better, but people are rightly blaming the government
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
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 3D chess.
Continuing the theme: Chess has 3 time controls - Classical/Quickplay/Blitz. Cricket has 3 time controls - Test/One day/T20.
4. You missed the hundred.
(Runs for cover)
They're playing a 60-ball competition in the Caribbean now that they're calling "6ixty". And, of course, first-class matches have been played over four, five, or six days in England, in just the last year and a bit.
There is also an indoor cricket variant called last man standing which is interesting, or I may have confused two different things there.
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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.
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.
Those are largely fixed costs. That's the point. The marginal cost of JRM's jolly boys' outing would have been petrol and a plate of Sainsbury's cheapest sandwiches. The car and driver would be paid for even if JRM never ventured past London, SW1.
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
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.
Hence too if Trump won in 2024 and got the armed forces behind him he could largely stay President indefinitely whatever Congress thought
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
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
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:
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.
What on earth are you talking about? Never watched it in my life. Ah - I'm talking about our own oilfield worker.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Nope - we don't want idiots wrecking people's houses and towns. See RT's comments yesterday on fracking.
The fact that a third do really highlights the deficiency in mental health provision.
I hesitate to criticise you @DavidL but that is unworthy of you. Mental health provision is really poor and it causes real problems for those suffering from it and their families. I am one of those as I went through a dark, very dark, decade when my son was seriously ill. We were told at the time that the waiting list even to get considered for a place at the only clinic which really treated his condition was 2 years. This was at the point when through the kindness of a Good Samaritan who called the police he'd narrowly escaped death. So we paid and paid and paid, for years and years. And now, thank God, he is himself again and beginning to live a normal and hopeful life like the rest of us.
But if you don't have the resources, what happens? It is utter misery of a type which if you haven't been through it is hard to comprehend. It is like being in a darkened room with a person howling in pain and trying to find the light switch or the door handle and not even knowing whether there is a door or light switch or if there is whether there is any light outside. It affects the person suffering and those around them. It is no joke. And it is lonely because so many people do treat it as a joke or as made up or as if it's your fault. So you can add guilt and loneliness into the mix. And it is not just a health issue because so many of those who end up in our prisons have mental health issues or their children in foster care.
It is - and always has been - the Cinderella of our health service. But we should do more. We really should. Fat chance.
Feel free to criticise me all you like @Cyclefree , I probably deserve it. My family has had far too much contact with NHS mental health services over the last 25 years, nearly all of which I wouldn’t speak of on a public site. Suffice to say that I would no longer have as many children had we not been able to buy in substantial support when it was needed. I am not making light of it in any way. Those who have had experience of those services find the claimed adoration of the NHS quite incomprehensible.
I am sorry to hear that. I wish you and yours the very best. Truly.
I do not adore the NHS. Some things it does very well, some very badly. Mental health is in the latter category.
I only speak now of my personal experience because it happened a long time ago and I feel I can now and because it was the loneliest time of my life and if saying something helps others to feel that they are not alone then that is, I hope, something.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
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
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
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.
Yes, I've been wondering for some time if it's remarkable discipline or merely lack of inspiration. I'm starting to think it is the former, just as you say.
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
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.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
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
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
But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT? And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways. The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
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
Hmm, the Rwandans might have something to say to that. What happens once that nice boutique hostel is full and they start complaining? As far as I know, it's up to them to stop incoming flights should they so decide, is it not?
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.
It always has and it always will, being full of Edinbuggers. The tune “The Flowers of Edinburgh” was written around 1740, and the place hasn’t improved since. Come to Glasgow instead.
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
But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
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
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.
One day you might change your mind about cricket. I hope so.
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.
Weirdly like Brown-Blair in mid 1990s.
Surely a coincidence?
Yes, that's his model. Why change a winning formula?
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
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
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.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
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
At the moment, I think that it would look like a massive evasion of the main issue, even to those who really care about it.
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
But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT? And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways. The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
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
But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
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
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.
Yes, I've been wondering for some time if it's remarkable discipline or merely lack of inspiration. I'm starting to think it is the former, just as you say.
It's what old-style Grammar Schools were very good at.
Making bright children work insanely hard. When it works, it's an incredibly potent combination.
(And fortunately for SKS, circumstances are going to provide the agenda and the vision. The vision will be Just Make It All Calm Down, and the agenda will be to patiently deep clean everything.)
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
But he didn't and he didn't. And he got what he deserved, as far as Parliament were concerned.
Edgehill was a draw and Charles won some early victories. Parliament was fortunate the brilliant military commander Cromwell took charge of their forces and modernised them into the New Model Army that enabled them to win. Without Cromwell Charles might well have won, certainly there is nobody in Parliament of Cromwell's military brilliance today
You're showing historical anachronism and hindsight. Firstly, it's your party in power at present, so ... Secondly, nobody knew what Cromwell and the others would be like in, say, 1635, any more than we can say how Parliament would turn out in the future.
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
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.
My family on both sides are and were Christians but not the bigoted type nor having a need to attend Church, but not one would have made the comment you made which is unworthy of any Christian
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
But if Rwanda doesn't want A LOT? And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways. The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
I must confess I'm envious of @Cyclefree's day in the Lakes and having been in Cartmel barely three weeks ago (and that's a village with more than its share of Michelin stars) I have to say the racecourse looked in magnificent shape and Good doesn't really do justice to ground which looked like a carpet.
As for drinking Aperol (whatever that is) in NW London - meh. Canary Wharf was quieter today but the tubes weren't - TFL did its usual best to irritate everyone's weekend by running its usual "feast and famine" service - three or four tubes within five minutes and then nothing for nine minutes. Basic operational and line control seem to be deficient currently on some of the lines - it should be possible to run a 4-5 minute service at weekends but currently whoever is running the lines seems to struggle even with that basic concept.
On to other matters and I noted @StuartDickson's comments on the Swedish election and it does seem the Moderates are having an awful campaign. The latest Novus poll has the centre right bloc on 50.7% and the centre left grouping on 47.8% but Novus does seem to poll strongly for the Sweden Democrats in particular - the latest Sifo has a dead heat on 49.6%.
Ulf Kristersson made a deal with the devil.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No it isn't, the Moderates centre right coalition got 31% at the last Swedish election. Now with the Swedish Democrats added on the combined right of centre vote is 47% in the polls.
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
Comments
(Runs for cover)
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/z88/
Have you any idea how mad you actually are?
If Parliament voted to legislate to legalise murder for example and that was not a manifesto commitment then the Monarch could and should veto that legislation
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.
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.
Now of course the Monarch would never veto legislation passed by Parliament unless it was something as evil as legalising murder which was also not a manifesto commitment otherwise it might lead to another civil war but legally they could
*allegedly.
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
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?
https://newatlas.com/energy/aluminum-sulfur-salt-battery-fast-safe-low-cost/
Cricket is, I believe, unique in all sports in having two timescales that run in parallel. It has a batting timescale, which is relatively slow, in that the batters must concentrate and accumulate over the course of an innings - even in T20 there are 120 balls to be played. And then it has a bowling timescale, which can be much faster, where all ten wickets in an innings may fall extremely quickly, and a single wicket, in a single ball, can turn a match on its head.
Added to this you have additional factors provided by the changing condition of the ball and pitch, which arguably add two more timescales to a match, particularly a first-class match played over several days.
I enjoy watching a game of football, and other sports also have their charms, but nothing compares with cricket. It is a great gift.
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm
As for hell I suggest you get your ticket ready
There is also an indoor cricket variant called last man standing which is interesting, or I may have confused two different things there.
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.
Surely a coincidence?
I do not adore the NHS. Some things it does very well, some very badly. Mental health is in the latter category.
I only speak now of my personal experience because it happened a long time ago and I feel I can now and because it was the loneliest time of my life and if saying something helps others to feel that they are not alone then that is, I hope, something.
I think this would pretty much halt any Albanian "asylum seekers" to the UK, for a start
And the Albanians don't apply for asylum anyways.
The answer lies in dealing with the black economy.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinion of the Sweden Democrats, it is indisputable that they are by far the most unpopular party among voters.
It is a strategic blunder of mind-boggling proportions. Imagine Scottish Labour teaming up with the hated Tories to defeat Scottish self-government. Oh!
No, it's not
Making bright children work insanely hard. When it works, it's an incredibly potent combination.
(And fortunately for SKS, circumstances are going to provide the agenda and the vision. The vision will be Just Make It All Calm Down, and the agenda will be to patiently deep clean everything.)
What is it then?
the combined right of centre vote
is 47% in the polls.
SLAB and SCon combined won the 2014 referendum