And whilst Michaela do what they do very well, their sixth form is mega selective. To get in, you need an average grade of 7 at GCSE (A in old money), and 8's (A/A*) in the subjects you plan to study at A Level.
That's stated entry threshold for 6th form at top grammars. The other metric to check would be what % of the 6th form were entered for how many A levels, as they may be filtering out lower performing students
That's an interesting set of stats from FE week, London seems to have benefited from the Covid flight to the country. A and up 26.9% in 2019 to 32.1% in 2025 - who'd bring up a family in crime-ridden London?
Drop in numbers doing computing is probably due it not being offered at A level as schools struggle to get teachers.
Lol, London is one of the best places to raise a family if you can afford it. Great state schools, as reflected in the A level results, the best cultural offering in the world, plenty of green space, brilliant public transport, lots of interesting people... who'd live anywhere else?
The clue is in the 'if you can afford it'.
One of massive pluses of the grammar system is that access to great schools is secured by ability, rather than house prices/cost of living.
Dorset really is a fabulous place to live because of this.
London also has a higher proportion of social housing than the rest of the country. So it's not as if everyone who raises a family in London is rich by any means. There's been an above average share of kids on free school meals at all my children's schools.
OK, it's a great place to live if you're mega-rich or if you're bottom-25%-poor. But not great if you're in the large gap in between.
There's lots of London: you have some great schools for ambitious parents, you have plenty of employment opportunities, and you have generally excellent public transport.
On the other hand, it can he extremely expensive.
But it takes all sorts.
I'm reminded of the famous Yogi Berra line: "Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded."
London’s great for the top 1% and the bottom 10%.
For everyone else, it’s totally unaffordable.
Those great schools have a *lot* of selection by house price, with a few exceptions like Michaela.
We're doing the "people who don't live in London explain to people who do live in London what living in London is like" thing are we? Or the even better "people who live in Dubai criticise London for its income inequality" thing?
'We may not officially know what the Corbyn/Sultana Party is called yet (popular suggestions so far include both ‘The People’s Party’ and ‘Arise’), but we do know one thing: they are shaggers.
So far internal comms has been full of stories about inter-party banging amongst volunteers and junior staffers, and already they’ve got a slightly surprising reputation for horniness.
Still though, it could be worse. The Corbynista-Sultanas are at least relieved that they don’t have the same reputation as junior staffers in Reform, who are becoming known for their phenomenal gakkiness.'
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
The problem comes when people attempt to knit a constitution can’t be changed, by legal means.
Which is very nice, if you like the resulting constitution.
If you don’t like the result, that’s how you get Julius Caesar. If you are lucky.
'We may not officially know what the Corbyn/Sultana Party is called yet (popular suggestions so far include both ‘The People’s Party’ and ‘Arise’), but we do know one thing: they are shaggers.
So far internal comms has been full of stories about inter-party banging amongst volunteers and junior staffers, and already they’ve got a slightly surprising reputation for horniness.
Still though, it could be worse. The Corbynista-Sultanas are at least relieved that they don’t have the same reputation as junior staffers in Reform, who are becoming known for their phenomenal gakkiness.'
What is "gakkiness" in this context? Does it refer to cocaine, untidiness or some flavour of nerddom?
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
As you've deliberately entered the realm of wild absurdity, let me follow
In the end this would come down to the loyalty of the army and police, as they are the enforcers of the law and the will of parliament, without and within
Would they be loyal to the crown in parliament, or to some lawyers in a courtroom? I strongly suspect the former. Only in a case like yours, where parliament tried to enact a surreally evil law for torturing kids, might this be questioned. Even then I wonder
However, Reform are not going to bring in the Act Enabling The Evisceration of Pet Dogs, much as I might be entertained by it
Thanks. Thought exercises are there to enable clarity, not make political recommendations. The point being that I would like in all cases parliament to be the law maker, and the courts to be the decider of cases and declarers of what the current state of the law is. And I want them both to be supreme over government which is servant not master. Parliament should not seek to oust the courts, and the courts should not oust the authority of parliament.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
'We may not officially know what the Corbyn/Sultana Party is called yet (popular suggestions so far include both ‘The People’s Party’ and ‘Arise’), but we do know one thing: they are shaggers.
So far internal comms has been full of stories about inter-party banging amongst volunteers and junior staffers, and already they’ve got a slightly surprising reputation for horniness.
Still though, it could be worse. The Corbynista-Sultanas are at least relieved that they don’t have the same reputation as junior staffers in Reform, who are becoming known for their phenomenal gakkiness.'
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Are you familiar with the area? How close is that to Jesmond Parish Church?
It's one of a small number of areas in the UK where a Church of England evangelical community could have an impact electorally - the church is the base of a vicar called Rev David Holloway, who is a Reformed type evangelical and has been vicar since 1973 (similars: St Helens Bishopsgate, Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield, St Ebbe's Oxford.).
They were at the heart of anti-womens' ordination moves in 1991 in the organisation called Reform that spearheaded withholding contributions to their Dioceses. They have had a congregation of about 1000 for decades, which is enough to have an impact if a) The members vote their values and b) They are locally based not eclectic.
That the LDs won suggests this impact did not happen .
If the evangelicals turn out and it is a low turnout council by election overall then the evangelicals could produce a surprisingly high vote there for Reform
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
Have you been to Jesmond then ?
Yes, but not in the 21st century Edit - by 'feel' I'm talking about information about the area and previous elections, not physically
And whilst Michaela do what they do very well, their sixth form is mega selective. To get in, you need an average grade of 7 at GCSE (A in old money), and 8's (A/A*) in the subjects you plan to study at A Level.
That's stated entry threshold for 6th form at top grammars. The other metric to check would be what % of the 6th form were entered for how many A levels, as they may be filtering out lower performing students
That's an interesting set of stats from FE week, London seems to have benefited from the Covid flight to the country. A and up 26.9% in 2019 to 32.1% in 2025 - who'd bring up a family in crime-ridden London?
Drop in numbers doing computing is probably due it not being offered at A level as schools struggle to get teachers.
Lol, London is one of the best places to raise a family if you can afford it. Great state schools, as reflected in the A level results, the best cultural offering in the world, plenty of green space, brilliant public transport, lots of interesting people... who'd live anywhere else?
The clue is in the 'if you can afford it'.
One of massive pluses of the grammar system is that access to great schools is secured by ability, rather than house prices/cost of living.
Dorset really is a fabulous place to live because of this.
Indeed, though I think only Poole and Bournemouth have grammars in Dorset, the rest have comps/academies
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Or indeed, if a Court were to rule like SCOTUS on Dred Scott, leaving civil war as the inevitable alternative.
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
Reform could of course repeal the HRA if it looked like the courts were going to entrench a constitution from it
"NHS Fife has admitted to the UK’s equalities watchdog that it broke the law by allowing a trans doctor to use a single-sex changing facility without carrying out an equality impact assessment.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now ordered the health board to “carry one out immediately”."
They still haven't done it? What is Isla Bumba for? Just the LOLs?
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
'We may not officially know what the Corbyn/Sultana Party is called yet (popular suggestions so far include both ‘The People’s Party’ and ‘Arise’), but we do know one thing: they are shaggers.
So far internal comms has been full of stories about inter-party banging amongst volunteers and junior staffers, and already they’ve got a slightly surprising reputation for horniness.
Still though, it could be worse. The Corbynista-Sultanas are at least relieved that they don’t have the same reputation as junior staffers in Reform, who are becoming known for their phenomenal gakkiness.'
Dare I ask - gakkiness?
Gak is slang for cocaine.
Gakkiness means a lot of use of gak.
It used to mean crystal meth too.
Ah okay, so they’re saying that junior Reform staffers are a bunch of cokeheads.
Whoever would have thought that young political staffers might be experts in sex and drugs?
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
As you've deliberately entered the realm of wild absurdity, let me follow
In the end this would come down to the loyalty of the army and police, as they are the enforcers of the law and the will of parliament, without and within
Would they be loyal to the crown in parliament, or to some lawyers in a courtroom? I strongly suspect the former. Only in a case like yours, where parliament tried to enact a surreally evil law for torturing kids, might this be questioned. Even then I wonder
However, Reform are not going to bring in the Act Enabling The Evisceration of Pet Dogs, much as I might be entertained by it
Thanks. Thought exercises are there to enable clarity, not make political recommendations. The point being that I would like in all cases parliament to be the law maker, and the courts to be the decider of cases and declarers of what the current state of the law is. And I want them both to be supreme over government which is servant not master. Parliament should not seek to oust the courts, and the courts should not oust the authority of parliament.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
It needs messing with, and people like you are one of the reasons why
We Brexited to make parliament sovereign again, but the job is only half done. We have to leave the ECHR and everything else that constrains us, and harms us, and if that means jailing a few judges and lawyers, so be it. Let the will of the people be done
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Or indeed, if a Court were to rule like SCOTUS on Dred Scott, leaving civil war as the inevitable alternative.
If 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states approve a US constitutional amendment as they don't like how the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution in one area it can be changed. However that is far more difficult to achieve than in the UK where just a simple majority vote of Parliament and signature of the King can amend a law or repeal a law or make a law if they dislike how judges have interpreted it or judges rulings at common law.
Hence judges in the US are far more powerful in constitutional matters than they are here
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
The problem comes when people attempt to knit a constitution can’t be changed, by legal means.
Which is very nice, if you like the resulting constitution.
If you don’t like the result, that’s how you get Julius Caesar. If you are lucky.
One of the weird things about being English is that most of us have no real conception of what it would be like to be somewhere where we can look back a shortish time - say up to 300-400 years - and see a single 'event' which creates our constitutional foundations and overturns the past. Not even 1649, 1660, 1688 0r 1832 come close.
I can think of a 20th century case in the House of Lords (as the SC was) where citation was made of a case from the 10th century. That doesn't feel odd. I think in most countries it would.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
As you've deliberately entered the realm of wild absurdity, let me follow
In the end this would come down to the loyalty of the army and police, as they are the enforcers of the law and the will of parliament, without and within
Would they be loyal to the crown in parliament, or to some lawyers in a courtroom? I strongly suspect the former. Only in a case like yours, where parliament tried to enact a surreally evil law for torturing kids, might this be questioned. Even then I wonder
However, Reform are not going to bring in the Act Enabling The Evisceration of Pet Dogs, much as I might be entertained by it
Thanks. Thought exercises are there to enable clarity, not make political recommendations. The point being that I would like in all cases parliament to be the law maker, and the courts to be the decider of cases and declarers of what the current state of the law is. And I want them both to be supreme over government which is servant not master. Parliament should not seek to oust the courts, and the courts should not oust the authority of parliament.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
It needs messing with, and people like you are one of the reasons why
We Brexited to make parliament sovereign again, but the job is only half done. We have to leave the ECHR and everything else that constrains us, and harms us, and if that means jailing a few judges and lawyers, so be it. Let the will of the people be done
I shall look forward to the thoughts of the 326+ Reform Aristotles and Solons who shall make up the HoC in 2029, and watch the progress of Leon MP with interest.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
Cameron and Osborne were running the Tories between 2005 and 2016 and that suited most people on PB very nicely. The opposite of populism.
A lot of our problems can be laid at Osborne's door. The de-prioritisation of investment, while prioritising pensioners' incomes. The cuts to the justice budget and defence. Help to Buy, in order to keep house prices from falling.
It was all Osborne.
Same with defence cuts and justice cuts too.
Osborne.
So nothing happened between Osbourne leaving office, and now ?
The coalition did some good stuff and some bad - as did Thatcher. But as with Thatcher, his successors just carried on with the bad stuff. Absolving them of responsibility for that, in the way your comment implies, is wrong.
His successors from 2016 onwards could have chosen to reverse his policies - and didn't - but the original decisions were taken by him. And had major implications.
It's not easy to reverse sell offs of courts, police stations and military bases, or rebuild the human capital.
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
Have you been to Jesmond then ?
Yes, but not in the 21st century Edit - by 'feel' I'm talking about information about the area and previous elections, not physically
I’m there regularly and will be there next week. 👍
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
As you've deliberately entered the realm of wild absurdity, let me follow
In the end this would come down to the loyalty of the army and police, as they are the enforcers of the law and the will of parliament, without and within
Would they be loyal to the crown in parliament, or to some lawyers in a courtroom? I strongly suspect the former. Only in a case like yours, where parliament tried to enact a surreally evil law for torturing kids, might this be questioned. Even then I wonder
However, Reform are not going to bring in the Act Enabling The Evisceration of Pet Dogs, much as I might be entertained by it
Thanks. Thought exercises are there to enable clarity, not make political recommendations. The point being that I would like in all cases parliament to be the law maker, and the courts to be the decider of cases and declarers of what the current state of the law is. And I want them both to be supreme over government which is servant not master. Parliament should not seek to oust the courts, and the courts should not oust the authority of parliament.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
It needs messing with, and people like you are one of the reasons why
We Brexited to make parliament sovereign again, but the job is only half done. We have to leave the ECHR and everything else that constrains us, and harms us, and if that means jailing a few judges and lawyers, so be it. Let the will of the people be done
I shall look forward to the thoughts of the 326+ Reform Aristotles and Solons who shall make up the HoC in 2029, and watch the progress of Leon MP with interest.
Thanks. It's gonna be weird. Sir Leon "the Leon" of the Damus, MP for Primrose Hill, GC, GCMG, Bart
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
There are probably less promising arguments than this but I can't at the moment think of any.
Osborne was pure politics. Short-term politics. All a game.
Cameron should have challenged him more on the strategic implications of the decisions but didn't.
Ossie warned Cameron of the potential jeopardy in holding the EU Referendum. The man was a soothsayer.
He saw the immediate political risk to himself and Cameron in holding the EU referendum but had no other solution to the problem other than not holding one (ever) and not talking about it in the hope the issue just went away.
As always, it was a short-term politically expedient view.
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
Have you been to Jesmond then ?
Been to Ilford Road!
No, but I don’t spout on about it and its politics. I don’t profess knowledge about it. IDGAF about it TBH.
I know you do. You tell us repeatedly. Mummy’s boy living in mummy’s basement. Awww bless.
'We may not officially know what the Corbyn/Sultana Party is called yet (popular suggestions so far include both ‘The People’s Party’ and ‘Arise’), but we do know one thing: they are shaggers.
So far internal comms has been full of stories about inter-party banging amongst volunteers and junior staffers, and already they’ve got a slightly surprising reputation for horniness.
Still though, it could be worse. The Corbynista-Sultanas are at least relieved that they don’t have the same reputation as junior staffers in Reform, who are becoming known for their phenomenal gakkiness.'
Dare I ask - gakkiness?
Gak is slang for cocaine.
Gakkiness means a lot of use of gak.
It used to mean crystal meth too.
Ah okay, so they’re saying that junior Reform staffers are a bunch of cokeheads.
Whoever would have thought that young political staffers might be experts in sex and drugs?
It’s why I never went into the world of professional politics.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
As you've deliberately entered the realm of wild absurdity, let me follow
In the end this would come down to the loyalty of the army and police, as they are the enforcers of the law and the will of parliament, without and within
Would they be loyal to the crown in parliament, or to some lawyers in a courtroom? I strongly suspect the former. Only in a case like yours, where parliament tried to enact a surreally evil law for torturing kids, might this be questioned. Even then I wonder
However, Reform are not going to bring in the Act Enabling The Evisceration of Pet Dogs, much as I might be entertained by it
Thanks. Thought exercises are there to enable clarity, not make political recommendations. The point being that I would like in all cases parliament to be the law maker, and the courts to be the decider of cases and declarers of what the current state of the law is. And I want them both to be supreme over government which is servant not master. Parliament should not seek to oust the courts, and the courts should not oust the authority of parliament.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
It needs messing with, and people like you are one of the reasons why
We Brexited to make parliament sovereign again, but the job is only half done. We have to leave the ECHR and everything else that constrains us, and harms us, and if that means jailing a few judges and lawyers, so be it. Let the will of the people be done
I shall look forward to the thoughts of the 326+ Reform Aristotles and Solons who shall make up the HoC in 2029, and watch the progress of Leon MP with interest.
Thanks. It's gonna be weird. Sir Leon "the Leon" of the Damus, MP for Primrose Hill, GC, GCMG, Bart
Nice idea but if you want to be a Reform MP Leon man of the People, MP for Dagenham or Bexley is more likely
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
There are probably less promising arguments than this but I can't at the moment think of any.
That's the problem with making ridiculous ad extremis arguments as you did with your hypothetical Act, to be balanced and intellectually honest you then open the door to taking things to extremes in every alternative.
And if you take it to extremes, bad Parliamentarians are easier to kick out than bad Judges.
Your problem is in your hypothetical argument you imagined the courts as a good thing, acting sensibly, rather than corrupted or dodgy or wrong.
That is absolutely joyous pop music. It is what classic pop music should be - a celebration of being young and sexy and confused and beautiful and desperately desperately horny
I've been a swiftie since the noughties and I feel cheated that now EVERYONE loves her, except the old grumps on PB
George Osborne arranged Cotswolds holiday for JD Vance Ex-chancellor helped source accommodation and devise itinerary for US vice-president
US vice-president JD Vance’s surprise break in the Cotswolds was arranged by an unlikely holiday planner: George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor, aided by his old boss David Cameron. https://www.ft.com/content/64df6fe3-c783-4d30-8622-6614d8e33fa7
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
I don't miss the point, yes courts can rule on precedence, but Parliament should be able to pass new laws no matter how unpleasant.
I don't want unpleasant laws passed, but it is better to have unpleasant laws passed by Parliament which we can vote to reverse, than by courts which we can't reverse.
Any suggestions Parliament shouldn't be able to pass laws are problematic.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
Cameron and Osborne were running the Tories between 2005 and 2016 and that suited most people on PB very nicely. The opposite of populism.
A lot of our problems can be laid at Osborne's door. The de-prioritisation of investment, while prioritising pensioners' incomes. The cuts to the justice budget and defence. Help to Buy, in order to keep house prices from falling.
It was all Osborne.
Same with defence cuts and justice cuts too.
Osborne.
So nothing happened between Osbourne leaving office, and now ?
The coalition did some good stuff and some bad - as did Thatcher. But as with Thatcher, his successors just carried on with the bad stuff. Absolving them of responsibility for that, in the way your comment implies, is wrong.
His successors from 2016 onwards could have chosen to reverse his policies - and didn't - but the original decisions were taken by him. And had major implications.
It's not easy to reverse sell offs of courts, police stations and military bases, or rebuild the human capital.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
What? A truly ridiculous straw man
I literally said "parliament can make and repeal any law it likes" - see, down below, I WROTE THAT
So yes if the only way to exterminate the blob is to repeal three million laws, then parliament can, would and should do that. And parliament is sovereign
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
I don't miss the point, yes courts can rule on precedence, but Parliament should be able to pass new laws no matter how unpleasant.
I don't want unpleasant laws passed, but it is better to have unpleasant laws passed by Parliament which we can vote to reverse, than by courts which we can't reverse.
Any suggestions Parliament shouldn't be able to pass laws are problematic.
@Nigelb is tilting at windmills that don't even exist
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so. PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
What about a majority in a country voting to remove voting rights from a minority?
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
You half wit , you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so.
You've almost certainly paid ten times the tax that @bondegezou has paid, as well
And he works for the state, I believe, so YOU are paying his wages
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
I don't miss the point, yes courts can rule on precedence, but Parliament should be able to pass new laws no matter how unpleasant.
I don't want unpleasant laws passed, but it is better to have unpleasant laws passed by Parliament which we can vote to reverse, than by courts which we can't reverse.
Any suggestions Parliament shouldn't be able to pass laws are problematic.
As I said, you indeed missed algarkirk's point. Or did not answer it. He wasn't suggesting Parliament shouldn't be able to pass the law. Re-read what he said.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
That is entirely about the judges looking at any limitations existing law (un-repealed) places on the new law, where the two things might be in conflict. His extreme case does not say that Parliament can't pass the law.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
What? A truly ridiculous straw man
I literally said "parliament can make and repeal any law it likes" - see, down below, I WROTE THAT
So yes if the only way to exterminate the blob is to repeal three million laws, then parliament can, would and should do that. And parliament is sovereign
Go back and look at some of your other comments. You've been straw manning algarkirk.
As for "exterminate the blob", you're talking in meaningless slogans again.
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
Like Leon, you entirely miss the point. Again.
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works, Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this. Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
What? A truly ridiculous straw man
I literally said "parliament can make and repeal any law it likes" - see, down below, I WROTE THAT
So yes if the only way to exterminate the blob is to repeal three million laws, then parliament can, would and should do that. And parliament is sovereign
Go back and look at some of your other comments. You've been straw manning algarkirk.
This is getting very dull now. Anyway it seems you both grudgingly admit the central point, ultimately the courts CANNOT constrain parliament, if parliament passes the correct legislation to 1. repeal any conflicting prior laws and 2. makes laws that does what parliament wants
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
You half wit , you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so.
You've almost certainly paid ten times the tax that @bondegezou has paid, as well
And he works for the state, I believe, so YOU are paying his wages
“I have taken a break precisely because I got fed up with wading through Leon’s shit; most of the content he spams into this forum nowadays consists either of repetitive bigoted vomit, self-obsessed wank, or gratuitous abuse. There is no analysis or intelligence or insight, at all. Day after day, it just becomes tiresome; PB should be about more than one man’s lifelong attempt to compensate for his under-endowment.
In no way can my absence be interpreted as any support whatsoever for Leon’s thesis that he’s the only racist left in the village.
I saw Leon’s photos of his bits and bobs from across the world; the most valuable souvenir you can get from any travel is a broader perspective, yet it is the one thing that he never manages to bring home.”
That’s all well and good, but on the upside I got you to shut up and leave, so it’s kinda swings and roundabouts?
FPT from Dura - "see you tomorrow".
I never flounced! I just said PB is in decline, which it is
On reflection I think it might be inevitable. The site was founded in the noughties, we’ve been here twenty years and we’ve all gotten a lot older (me included). Some of us have literally died. So the decay in commentary value is baked in: we simply don’t attract enough newcomers to compensate for the Agues of Time
However I stand by my other point. This slide is not helped by a groupthink Centrist Dork hostility to right wing ideas - especially when the populist right is in the ascendant. It’s the equivalent of a British football website refusing to discuss northern clubs run by wealthy foreigners
When this site was founded the Tories were still the main right of centre party and certainly once Cameron took over still the most popular party with the upper middle class who are found disproportionally on here.
Now Reform are the main right of centre party and most popular with the white working class, who aren't found in significant numbers on PB while many of the upper middle class think Farage is a populist oik
This is an astute and interesting point
No-one has yet, SFAICS, ventured on PB to give a reasoned account of why people should support Reform on account of their ability to govern the UK really well.
"Can't be worse" and "rolling the dice" about covers it, I think.
Also “will actually stop mass immigration” and “will actually stop the boats” are fairly important, no?
If Reform enters government and does just those two things, while mismanaging everything else as badly as Labour or the Tories, I will be very satisfied with my Reform, especially as I will probably be a Reform MP
Yes, they have 2 strands. The specific (nativist, anti-immigrant) and the general (upset the status quo).
It's essentially the same mix that got Brexit over the line. That's why you'll find that almost all Reform voters who are old enough to have voted in 2016 will have voted Leave.
It's also why - given it's the same drivers, the same pool of voters, the same leader - that we shouldn't, if we have any sense, touch it with a bargepole.
Reform voters want vast and increasing and better run amounts of the status quo. This is lost of many commentators. The status quo popular with Reform voters includes: NHS, cradle to grave welfare, free education to 18, state pensions, NATO, proper transport infrastructure, social housing.
Every one of the expensive bits of the state.
This truth governs all the rest of how Reform would act in government.
You could say the same of MAGA, but it hasn't governed how Trump has acted. The Republicans have sold their WWC voters down the river in favour of tax cuts for the rich and a massive build-up of ICE.
A good point, but there are a couple of key differences:
UK voters are not religious in the same way as USA voters are. They are much less subject to magical beliefs about charismatic politicians. Nor are they ideologically accustomed to the idea that the rich can be radically irresponsible and run the country on their own fiat.
The UK does not allow for the takeover of the state by an individual and cronies as easily as the USA. And Reform MPs will mostly want to be re-elected on 2034.
Our courts are far less politicised, and there is no chance (IMO) of a government simply ignoring thr rule of law.
But we shall perhaps find out. (30% chance of a Reform majority government).
The U.K. has supremacy of Parliament. Which means that a majority in the Commons can do virtually anything.
Some lawyers are trying to knit a constitution out of HR law etc. - to truly limit what parliament can do on various things.
I can easily imagine a battle in the courts to try and limit primary legislation by a Reform Government.
A court battle to prevent the passing of primary legislation would be, SFAICS, entirely novel and would be a constitutional event of box office proportions.
Court battles over the meaning and application/disapplication of primary (and other) legislation is standard fare in modern law. This is because, to the chagrin of dim MPs, the law is not a superficial thing. It is a collective body of materials gathered over the last 1000 years or so from various sources and is in a permanent state of development. If an Act of 2025 is inconsistent or ambiguous when put alongside an Act from the reign of Edward III which it has failed to repeal there is an issue for a court to decide. Multiply this by a few billion and you have the current state of things. To test the waters and appreciate the complexities just read few Supreme Court judgments - probably the world's brightest court; these only deal in contested and previously indeterminate matters.
What I think is impossible in the UK (unlike the USA) is three fold: That courts will allow its fundamental jurisdiction to be ousted; that a Reform government will try to do so; and that a Reform government will try to overlook or ignore the rule of law as pronounced by our courts.
Of course parliament can - and I hope will - overrule the courts. Parliament is the people, and it is the people that decide
There is no supreme law in the UK that operates above parliament, like some Ten Commandments in the Bible, or indeed like some royal Divine Right
We had a Civil War to establish this fact. Indeed, if a bunch of wanker lawyers tried to prevent the British parliament acting freely, we would soon see similar violence. Not a route we want to take
I genuinely doubt that, given that that has arguably already happened with the gender ruling and the violence being limited to pissing on statues and broken glass. Bear in mind that during Covid we had the polis arresting and detaining people for breaking guidelines, which aren't laws. Cyclefree pointed this out at the time
In my Blob article I pointed out that the Human Rights Act 199x, the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Equality Act 2006 & 2010 bound their successors. The HRA does this explicitly, the CCA and EA do it by establishing standing committees/quangos.
It worries me how little this is understood, especially by MPs.
Because it's bollocks. Parliament is supreme and if parliament decided to repeal all this shit, then it is repealed. Lawyers do not run the country, our elected MPs do. And if you literally try to stop this, then - in the end - violence will happen. The idea it cannot occur in the UK is nonsense. Until recently we had an armed insurrection in the UK - in northern Ireland - precisely because of this. People felt disenfranchised. In that case it was a minority, you're talking about thwarting the will of the overall UK government
We had violent riots last year, and so on
People like you will take us to a truly ominous place. It's like the people who wanted to "Revoke Brexit" or "have a second vote" without enacting the first. It was crazily dangerous, but the fools advocating it were too dumb or blinkered to understand the inevitable result of overturning democracy in that fashion
Is anyone arguing that Parliament can't repeal these laws ? If so they are in a tiny minority.
It's you that appears to be appealing to the "will of the people" over the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
Of course Parliament can legislate how it wants. What we are saying is that governments can't just ignore existing law to say "make it so".
It seems to me that some on here are saying exactly what I claim: that the law fundamentally constrains parliament. Fundamentally, and absolutely, it does not. Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses, and any new law must be enacted. And if it is blocked by a court, parliament can abolish that court. And if anyone else tries to prevent parliament enacting the will of the people, parliament can pass laws to have those people jailed, or killed
Hopefully we won't reach that unpleasant state of affairs
Whether Reform have got the cullions to do all this is a different question . TBH I gravely doubt it. I suspect they will repeal some of the stupider laws but sadly I won't get the peaceful revolution I want
However, as I've also said, if they can simply sort out migration, boats, and human rights, in term one, that would be enough to satisfy me
Let us take an extreme and hypothetical case just to make it clear. Parliament passes, with royal assent an Act called 'The Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2026'. This enacts exactly what it says on the tin.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
i don't think I am alone in thinking this.
If Leon MP is right we are going to need these annoying interfering people a bit.
If Parliament passes the law, then it should be the law. And we should be able to kick out the bastards that passed that law and reverse it since no Parliament can bind its successors.
The alternative is saying to take it to the extreme that if a court rules you have an irreversible human right to torture children for fun, then Parliament can't reverse that and we as voters have no way to reverse the courts decision.
The only way to secure our rights is to vote for them, and to have a Parliament as the ultimate arbiter.
There are probably less promising arguments than this but I can't at the moment think of any.
That's the problem with making ridiculous ad extremis arguments as you did with your hypothetical Act, to be balanced and intellectually honest you then open the door to taking things to extremes in every alternative.
And if you take it to extremes, bad Parliamentarians are easier to kick out than bad Judges.
Your problem is in your hypothetical argument you imagined the courts as a good thing, acting sensibly, rather than corrupted or dodgy or wrong.
Not quite. Two points: Hypothetical cases are there to bring out principle, not to make recommendations. Secondly, Trumpism since January suggests that examples that may have seemed theoretical may actually, even in a mature democracy, be enacted by an executive. (Though not of course my example).
One more point: Both our cases point to the fallibility of systems - which is true. Law decided by courts are amendable by parliament; parliamentary laws are subject to proper scrutiny by courts. Perhaps that is the best we can do. I would not do without either limb.
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so. PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
Yeah, he’s apologised for his error. So no problem.
Good for you Malc.
I worked for 42 years before I retired. I had 6 weeks off work from when I left Land Rover and started at a north east car parts supplier.
I don’t feel any desire to work again. The workplace doesn’t value age or experience.
That is absolutely joyous pop music. It is what classic pop music should be - a celebration of being young and sexy and confused and beautiful and desperately desperately horny
I've been a swiftie since the noughties and I feel cheated that now EVERYONE loves her, except the old grumps on PB
She's certainly made the most out of the old I–V–vi–IV chord progression I'll give her that.
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Are you familiar with the area? How close is that to Jesmond Parish Church?
It's one of a small number of areas in the UK where a Church of England evangelical community could have an impact electorally - the church is the base of a vicar called Rev David Holloway, who is a Reformed type evangelical and has been vicar since 1973 (similars: St Helens Bishopsgate, Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield, St Ebbe's Oxford.).
They were at the heart of anti-womens' ordination moves in 1991 in the organisation called Reform that spearheaded withholding contributions to their Dioceses. They have had a congregation of about 1000 for decades, which is enough to have an impact if a) The members vote their values and b) They are locally based not eclectic.
That the LDs won suggests this impact did not happen .
Im not especially familiar with the area that would afford me any knowledge beyond broad brush stuff tbf, so thank you for the interesting extra info!
Like anything else, it's applied sociology at elections. Th CofE is traditionally diffuse so except on what are viewed as first rank or existential questions it will tend to be "I suggest tentatively that these are important values; go away and think about it" not "do THIS".
There will be stronger effects in more isolated and concentrated communities - which could be different version of the church (Koreans in Malden?), or different communities - Scientologists around East Grinstead, Ahmadiyya near their HQ in Tilford, Lutfur Rahman's mob in Tower Hamlets with etc. Or significant residential communities (Jesus Army at Bugbrooke in the past?).
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
Have you been to Jesmond then ?
One area there had a local punch up about an LTN in the last year or two but I don't know the detailed geography of where everything is.
The "Clayton Memorial Church" (which was its foundation name was in 186x) is the sort of church I would visit when passing because I'm always interested in how the development of a church community can be read from the development of the building. But I've never got to that one. They use an unusual interior layout to express their theology, which is really left over from Victorian times.
LD gain in Jesmond, Lab hold on a painful vote share loss in Sunny Jim's back yard
Those were also my predictions on the VoteUK forum prediction page. It'll be interesting to see how RefUK does in these unpromising areas from their point of view.
Jesmond doesnt feel at all Reformy, third place i think. Cardiff has too much variety i think to swing hard to Reform, its likely to be their worst area next year unless they get utterly Plaided in Ynys mon/Aberconwy or Ceredigion (or the Dwyfor half of the Montgomery seat)
Have you been to Jesmond then ?
One area there had a local punch up about an LTN in the last year or two but I don't know the detailed geography of where everything is.
The "Clayton Memorial Church" (which was its foundation name was in 186x) is the sort of church I would visit when passing because I'm always interested in how the development of a church community can be read from the development of the building. But I've never got to that one. They use an unusual interior layout to express their theology, which is really left over from Victorian times.
Indeed it did. I remember seeing it on the local news and the shops I popped in would have notes in the door against it, mainly due to concerns about business. I’ve found it far easier to cycle around than drive around, TBH. Especially as some of the roads are effectively one way due to cars parking either side.
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so. PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
Yeah, he’s apologised for his error. So no problem.
Good for you Malc.
I worked for 42 years before I retired. I had 6 weeks off work from when I left Land Rover and started at a north east car parts supplier.
I don’t feel any desire to work again. The workplace doesn’t value age or experience.
I am lucky Taz, I still enjoy it am valued highly so will do for a bit yet, my target is to complete 50 years with current employer , so 2 years max for that. If I stop enjoying it I will pack it in. @Taz
That is absolutely joyous pop music. It is what classic pop music should be - a celebration of being young and sexy and confused and beautiful and desperately desperately horny
I've been a swiftie since the noughties and I feel cheated that now EVERYONE loves her, except the old grumps on PB
Average singers quite often have pop music hits - it's been noted. The most average singer in The Supremes for example, became a superstar.
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so. PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
Yeah, he’s apologised for his error. So no problem.
Good for you Malc.
I worked for 42 years before I retired. I had 6 weeks off work from when I left Land Rover and started at a north east car parts supplier.
I don’t feel any desire to work again. The workplace doesn’t value age or experience.
I am lucky Taz, I still enjoy it am valued highly so will do for a bit yet, my target is to complete 50 years with current employer , so 2 years max for that. If I stop enjoying it I will pack it in. @Taz
In that case, good for you and go for it
I didnt really feel valued, stopped enjoying it so left.
1) There has been an enormous increase in road mileage since 2010, even while economic activity has barely increased 2) This is primarily due to LCVs (vans). HGVs, buses have both fallen over that period. 3) and this is due to the surge in online shopping, Amazon etc 4) this kind of economic activity is dependent on ... low-skilled and cheap labour 5) immigrants
No, it’s dependent on demand from people, like myself. If we didn’t want it there wouldn’t be people providing it. Same with JustEat.
The lovely young lady from DPD who delivered my wife’s 10th anniversary gift yesterday was white and British.
It is fair to say that there has been a policy of not increasing road capacity (much). Combined with a massive increase in population.
This has led to pressure on road usage. And just about everything else.
Indeed but that’s not down to immigrants like Mr Lowe suggests, and it is not just roads it is our infrastructure in general as well as housing.
The massive population increase is down to immigration.
People don’t like to say that, since it sounds like immigrant blaming.
But if you try and put a quart in a pint pot, is the beer to blame, or the pot?
We need more stuff (roads, hospitals, houses) for millions of people. They are not to blame for this.
All that stuff is paid for by people. More people need more stuff, but also pay for more stuff. The "pot", so to speak, increases with the population size. An increase in population shouldn't be an issue.
Economics from dummies
Lib Dem’s ?
Bondegezou and his stupid more people means more money crap. Just means more taken off workers to give to non workers
If I recall correctly, you're a non-worker. I'm a worker. Give me my feckin' money back!
you obviously don't read other people's posts. I am still working , 54 years without a day out of work. I have received feck all from you or anybody else and have funded plenty and continue to do so. PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
Yeah, he’s apologised for his error. So no problem.
Good for you Malc.
I worked for 42 years before I retired. I had 6 weeks off work from when I left Land Rover and started at a north east car parts supplier.
I don’t feel any desire to work again. The workplace doesn’t value age or experience.
I am lucky Taz, I still enjoy it am valued highly so will do for a bit yet, my target is to complete 50 years with current employer , so 2 years max for that. If I stop enjoying it I will pack it in. @Taz
In that case, good for you and go for it
I didnt really feel valued, stopped enjoying it so left.
TBH it is nice to have the option.
It's like that advertising slogan for gambling, isn't it? 'When the fun stops, stop.'
It's just not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to do that.
Comments
Or the even better "people who live in Dubai criticise London for its income inequality" thing?
Which is very nice, if you like the resulting constitution.
If you don’t like the result, that’s how you get Julius Caesar. If you are lucky.
And yes, all this is an elaborate hoax or Beckett play keeping at bay since 1688 the use of overwhelming force to run things, but as illusions go it is doing OK. Only, don't mess with it.
Gakkiness means a lot of use of gak.
It used to mean crystal meth too.
Edit - by 'feel' I'm talking about information about the area and previous elections, not physically
Phama companies are raising prices elsewhere to try and limit the damage to what was a massively lucrative US market.
Whoever would have thought that young political staffers might be experts in sex and drugs?
We Brexited to make parliament sovereign again, but the job is only half done. We have to leave the ECHR and everything else that constrains us, and harms us, and if that means jailing a few judges and lawyers, so be it. Let the will of the people be done
Hence judges in the US are far more powerful in constitutional matters than they are here
I can think of a 20th century case in the House of Lords (as the SC was) where citation was made of a case from the 10th century. That doesn't feel odd. I think in most countries it would.
It's not easy to reverse sell offs of courts, police stations and military bases, or rebuild the human capital.
One could start a conspiracy theory that her record label bribed Adele to go on semi-permanent career hiatus so Swift could become big dog.
As always, it was a short-term politically expedient view.
I know you do. You tell us repeatedly. Mummy’s boy living in mummy’s basement. Awww bless.
And if you take it to extremes, bad Parliamentarians are easier to kick out than bad Judges.
Your problem is in your hypothetical argument you imagined the courts as a good thing, acting sensibly, rather than corrupted or dodgy or wrong.
Some of her songs are cracking
Red
Our Song
You Belong With Me
And half a dozen more
Here. Here's You Belong With Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw
1.7 BILLION views!?
That is absolutely joyous pop music. It is what classic pop music should be - a celebration of being young and sexy and confused and beautiful and desperately desperately horny
I've been a swiftie since the noughties and I feel cheated that now EVERYONE loves her, except the old grumps on PB
Ex-chancellor helped source accommodation and devise itinerary for US vice-president
US vice-president JD Vance’s surprise break in the Cotswolds was arranged by an unlikely holiday planner: George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor, aided by his old boss David Cameron.
https://www.ft.com/content/64df6fe3-c783-4d30-8622-6614d8e33fa7
Unless Parliament explicitly repeals existing laws which conflict with the new law, or says explicitly that the new law overrides them, then it is the courts' place to adjudicate which takes precedence.
That is our constitution. It is how Parliamentary sovereignty works,
Parliament can overrule any of its predecessors - but it must pass legislation to do so.
The executive merely commanding a majority in Parliament does not grant it powers above the law.
You know this.
Leon would prefer to blur it, in his enthusiasm for his belief that he can somehow uniquely divine the "will of the people".
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1955943890982142134
I’m not much of a fan of Starmer, but I’m a massive fan of Zelensky, and pleased that support for Ukraine has not become politicised in the UK.
The point is that the terms of trade have altered.
I don't want unpleasant laws passed, but it is better to have unpleasant laws passed by Parliament which we can vote to reverse, than by courts which we can't reverse.
Any suggestions Parliament shouldn't be able to pass laws are problematic.
I literally said "parliament can make and repeal any law it likes" - see, down below, I WROTE THAT
So yes if the only way to exterminate the blob is to repeal three million laws, then parliament can, would and should do that. And parliament is sovereign
PS: I see you have already corrected your erroneous statement so peace.
And he works for the state, I believe, so YOU are paying his wages
He wasn't suggesting Parliament shouldn't be able to pass the law. Re-read what he said.
I quite like the system whereby some irritating and busybody group can go to the high court and start asking the judges in that annoying leftie way about parameters, limits, the effect of other legislation on this, whether the common law has anything to offer by way of balance, the meaning of words, the injuncting of potential torturers, the effects of treaties and other boring legal stuff.
That is entirely about the judges looking at any limitations existing law (un-repealed) places on the new law, where the two things might be in conflict.
His extreme case does not say that Parliament can't pass the law.
You've been straw manning algarkirk.
As for "exterminate the blob", you're talking in meaningless slogans again.
So the Civil War was not fought in vain. Yay
One more point: Both our cases point to the fallibility of systems - which is true. Law decided by courts are amendable by parliament; parliamentary laws are subject to proper scrutiny by courts. Perhaps that is the best we can do. I would not do without either limb.
Good for you Malc.
I worked for 42 years before I retired. I had 6 weeks off work from when I left Land Rover and started at a north east car parts supplier.
I don’t feel any desire to work again. The workplace doesn’t value age or experience.
Reform supporters want to support people to switch to green air-to-air heat pumps*.
The Green Party's supporters are opposed however.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1955914108483555566
*aka air conditioning.
NEW THREAD
There will be stronger effects in more isolated and concentrated communities - which could be different version of the church (Koreans in Malden?), or different communities - Scientologists around East Grinstead, Ahmadiyya near their HQ in Tilford, Lutfur Rahman's mob in Tower Hamlets with etc. Or significant residential communities (Jesus Army at Bugbrooke in the past?).
The "Clayton Memorial Church" (which was its foundation name was in 186x) is the sort of church I would visit when passing because I'm always interested in how the development of a church community can be read from the development of the building. But I've never got to that one. They use an unusual interior layout to express their theology, which is really left over from Victorian times.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5451464-luna-lawmakers-evidence-interdimensional-beings/
In that case, good for you and go for it
I didnt really feel valued, stopped enjoying it so left.
TBH it is nice to have the option.
It's just not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to do that.