Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
I have it that she’s actually rather jumped up and pompous - clearing a hen do off a table in a nightclub that booked months ahead, because “don’t you know who I am!”. Yeah you’re a bankrupt adulterer who married a grade A wrongun.
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
D and E were fails.
Not quite that simple:
From 1975 to 1987 attainment in an O-level subject was indicated by a grade A, B, C, D or E, of which grade A was the highest and grade E the lowest. Grades A, B and C represented the former O-level Pass. Grades D and E indicated a lower standard of attainment, but were still judged sufficient to be recorded on the certificate. Grades below E were ungraded and not recorded on the certificate.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
They are both irrelevant. You are failing to understand the difference between ongoing spending / deficit and one-off spending / debt.
Aside from everything else, historically it's very unusual for the country to go into emergency conditions such as we did during COVID and not to attempt the balance the books (to an extent) with a huge spike in tax. See the world wars as an example.
Let's be frank, plenty of people came through COVID absolutely fine. There is a lot of focus on those who we supported via furlough (which was really support for business), but there were also millions of people in well-paid jobs, large gardens etc who had an idyllic spring and summer. I was stuck in a poxy flat without a girlfriend, so it wasn't all good, but I should really have been paying significantly more tax during that period. Instead I saved £10,000s which I spent on a year-long foreign holiday.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Labour release their Repatriation Economic Bombshell poster and social media campaign arguing that sending 'them' all home will fuck the economy big time and wreck the nhs.
You can't tell people who are struggling to get by that change will be bad for them. They won't believe it. The only way for Labour to win is to reduce immigration, stop the boats and commit to their own "deportation plan" that looksike what Kemi has proposed. It's not even deportation, it's just ending visas and not giving out new ones - they go home of their own accord and we'd only deport the ones that overstay.
I predict an influx of asylum claims from the Mother's in law of Zimbabwean care home workers
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
100%
Reform suffer from magic thinking, every bit as much as the Corbyn/Sultanas.
Until they are in office, Reform aren't suffering from magical thinking; they're enjoying it.
The councillors who found themselves accidentally running counties, they probably are suffering. Hey ho.
(I still mostly suspect that Farage will notice the risk in 2028 or so and find an excuse to do a runner, like he did in 2016 and 2019.)
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Thta's the problem with many of the "Judges Thwarting The People" stories.
There is a whole tangle of laws already in place. Some of them are from our dalliance with the EEC/EU, but many of them aren't. So if there are two laws that imply different conculsions, how does the state decide what to do?
I suspect that it needs increasingly smart (one might almost say forensic) Parliamentarians to navigate that tangle, and work out which knots to swerve, which to tangle, and which to cut. Unfortunately, the mood of the times is not to have smart Parlimentarians, but to throw a massive wobbly when anyone points out "you might want to legislate for X, but there are these other laws that say not-X". And whilst "no Parliament may bind its sucessor" is an excellent principle, it does raise practical difficulties unless we wipe the slate totally clean each election.
Wiping the slate clean is not an option unless anarchy is an option. For example, local government is entirely a creation of statute - what it is, what it does, its powers and duties and discretions. The moment the 'slate is clean' local government - bins, libraries, social care, social work, property ownership, roads and all the rest - ceases to exist WRT to money raising, power to pay wages, duties and powers and enforcement.
This would be true of everything. Civil Aviation Authority, police, NHS. Not an option.
This is why only in new or revolution/anarchy prone countries does the 'clean slate' opportunity arise. France for example.
BREAKING: Disney said 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' will return to the air on Tuesday after it suspended the talk-show host following threats by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission over comments the host made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
You don't mean that. Then we could come round and steal all your lovely vintage glassware while you are out of the country.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
They are both irrelevant. You are failing to understand the difference between ongoing spending / deficit and one-off spending / debt.
The on going spending is the result of the covid fallout and huge increase in borrowing costs now over 107 billion pa
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
And did it ?
I don't believe so. At least my friend is still on earth and I haven't noticed a load of people suddenly not here.
BREAKING: Disney said 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' will return to the air on Tuesday after it suspended the talk-show host following threats by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission over comments the host made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
BREAKING: Disney said 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' will return to the air on Tuesday after it suspended the talk-show host following threats by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission over comments the host made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk
Excellent news for now, but how will Trump retaliate?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
They are bound by existing legislation until they change it. They can’t just ignore it
Not seen any discussion of ITV's COVID contracts programme. From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts. Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them. Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
Flag update: one of the local hand car washes has raised on either side of its gates an England flag and a British one. The employees, I have to say, are fairly typical in appearance for the type of business, so not sure what message they are sending.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Oh Hello Mr Passive Aggressive!
Who says Farage shouldn't be subject to scrutiny?
And who said PB is meant to be a barometer of public opinion? It is certainly worth knowing that it isn't, as you end up reading a load of people agreeing with each other that something is terribly awful and beyond the pale, whilst the public are voting for it
Nice try but you and I both know just because people vote for something doesn't make it right.
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
The query is welcome - planning law is complex, and it's easy for any of us to get details wrong.
According to my AI query, the Local Planning Authority (info: in England the LPA is the Local District or Unitary Council, or the National Park) can overrule a Natural England objection, but have to have cogent reasons:
AI Overview
Yes, a planning authority can overrule Natural England's objection, but they must have cogent reasons for doing so. While Natural England's advice carries significant weight, particularly regarding Habitats Regulations, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not bound by it and can depart from their advice if they have strong, objective evidence showing there will be no negative impacts on nature.
I'll have a bit of a dig later. One development I was involved with was nearly caught in in a Special Protection Area for Birds - which extend a surprising distance (when there was a charge to provide alternative foraging ground). But we were just outside the zone.
How on earth could any council wanting a kite festival to proceed provide such evidence in the face of 'the experts' at Natural England objecting? And who is the final arbiter of such a dispute? Sorry but this is typically mealy mouthed 'not our fault guv' nonsense. Natural England are fully to blame for this decision, there was no realistic prospect of the kite festival 'winning' this argument, and the campaigner was entirely correct to blame them.
Nah.
The planning committee/ council could easily wangle this. We have control of timings. We can ignore statutory consultees, we can just ignore the advice saying we have given the matter due consideration with an open mind and have found the argument to have failed to convince us wrt to the environmental impacts vs economic and social benefits blah blah.
The council must have wanted to lose the event from its calendar, presumably because it was becoming a pita and or it was not worth the bother.
Planning Committees are surprisingly self contained and independently minded. They are an absolute bugger to control. Totally unreliable. You can’t trust them.
Planning officers on the other hand are likely to kowtow to Natural England. By default. But the committee will please itself. If it wants to ignore the officers. It will.
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
I think it's unlikely the alleged killer is an agent of Mossad. However, it is worth remember that Israel did give us Dana International, so there is definitely a trans element there if you look closely enough...
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
You don't mean that. Then we could come round and steal all your lovely vintage glassware while you are out of the country.
I absolutely do mean this. The only way to save the country is a peaceful revolution. Sack most of the civil service and virtually all the judiciary, and so on
If this fails, then we will get something not-peaceful, which no one wants
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
I think it's unlikely the alleged killer is an agent of Mossad. However, it is worth remember that Israel did give us Dana International, so there is definitely a trans element there if you look closely enough...
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
PB is about predicting what’s going to happen. Expressing your moral outrage and shouting down views contrary to the pb groupthink, clouds the communal crystal ball.
I wasn't aware anyone was being "shouted down" by anyone else. Expressing disagreement isn't shouting someone down, it's disagreeing with them, it's called debate, we used to do it quite a lot on here.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Oh Hello Mr Passive Aggressive!
Who says Farage shouldn't be subject to scrutiny?
And who said PB is meant to be a barometer of public opinion? It is certainly worth knowing that it isn't, as you end up reading a load of people agreeing with each other that something is terribly awful and beyond the pale, whilst the public are voting for it
Nice try but you and I both know just because people vote for something doesn't make it right.
I didn't try anything, nor say what was right or wrong, just that it is useful to know that PB is not representative of the public.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
Basically, you're saying she's like her ex, only with one big redeeming characteristic?
Andy is stupid, foolish, greedy, venal, arrogant, contemptible, corrupt, self-serving, patronising and lazy. As well as having poor judgement.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Not seen any discussion of ITV's COVID contracts programme. From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts. Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them. Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
60% of PPE supplied through VIP lane was unusable.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
You don't mean that. Then we could come round and steal all your lovely vintage glassware while you are out of the country.
I absolutely do mean this. The only way to save the country is a peaceful revolution. Sack most of the civil service and virtually all the judiciary, and so on
If this fails, then we will get something not-peaceful, which no one wants
Except you were saying Chilean fascism wasn't so bad the other day.
I make it, scaled up, around 10000 UK deaths at the hands of the authorities, around 70000 political prisoners and around 700k exiles, all mainly leftists.
I'm trying to assess my own ranking as a UK leftist in order to determine what will happen to me. A PB commenter tbf, isn't high up the food chain, so I might escape actual political exile, though whether I'd want to be here is another matter.
Eagles and a few of the more politically prominent on here could be in something of a pickle though.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
I think it's unlikely the alleged killer is an agent of Mossad. However, it is worth remember that Israel did give us Dana International, so there is definitely a trans element there if you look closely enough...
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
I tried to persuade a politician friend to replace our entire legal framework with "Thou shalt not be a dick". I was imagining the beak at a trial (I may have been picturing Peter Cook) just frowning over his specs ".... And so, defendant. Were you in fact... being a dick?".... "Yes, your honour - I think I was".
But he claimed it was a bit trickier than that in practice. The woke blob in action, is what I say.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
Irrelevant as to why current budget spending on welfare was still apparently out of control in 2024. That £400bn just adds to our debt pile.
And what would you have done during the Covid years to protect jobs and people's health?
It is not irrelevant nor was the inflation effect of the Ukraine war both of which contributing to our debt and immigration when we offered a safe haven to Ukranians together with Hong Kong citizens and Afghans
And Starmer wanted longer lock downs costing many billions more
Are we still flogging the lockdown dead horse? By July 2020, the virus origin, transmission mechanisms, IFR and first therapeutic strategies were already coming into focus. It was utterly extraordinary that the various funny money handouts didn’t end until Sept 2021, and even worse, reactionary voices that clamoured for fresh lockdown with the arrival of the patently positive development of Omicron.
I do not absolve Starmer (or Khan), but the last government and Parliament utterly failed us by giving in to the protracted hysteria.
It’s a tricky one.
We all view this from a partisan perspective. My view would mirror yours BUT my privilege and geography must be distorting my retrospect.
I think we will have to credit those making the decisions with good intentions within a distorted information landscape.
If they knew better they wouldn’t have made the choices they did.
And I’m pretty sure our emergency protocol will fail next time too. People are cave apes living a crazy life.
PS Fully accept the corruption was endemic. And I’m not thinking that was inevitable. It’s the lockdown timings I’m forgiving of.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
I don’t see why you could not have special provisions that apply to asylum provisions with law like “Where a person applies for asylum in the United Kingdom, the process and rights set out in section 2 apply. This process and these rights apply to a person seeking asylum to the exclusion of all other processes and rights. The only right of appeal is X in Y circumstances. Any Acts, regulations, or other provisions having the force of law providing otherwise shall be void and shall have no effect. The Human Rights Act 1998 is disapplied in relation to this process.”
I wrote that in the bath so I am sure they can do better but as they say, less is more.
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
You are so stupid it’s unbelievable. It’s like in your old age you have lost all ability to see the consequences of your actions and ideas.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
I tried to persuade a politician friend to replace our entire legal framework with "Thou shalt not be a dick". I was imagining the beak at a trial (I may have been picturing Peter Cook) just frowning over his specs ".... And so, defendant. Were you in fact... being a dick?".... "Yes, your honour - I think I was".
But he claimed it was a bit trickier than that in practice. The woke blob in action, is what I say.
You'd like chicks-with-dicks to be replaced by chicks-who-are-dicks?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Repealing most bills passed since 1997 would improve things.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Labour are briefing out that they are going to push through an extension to reach ILR to 10 years and apply it to people already in the pipeline. Let's see if it's true. If it is then ultimately this stops being an issue anyway as all of the boriswave will have their ILR dates after the next election at which point visas can be ended and not renewed, terms on unskilled visas can be amended so that they don't accrue residency rights and existing skilled worker visa holders can be pushed into the higher income brackets.
None of those measures are deportation, it's more like becoming more selective over who is allowed to stay in the country and taken together they could have the effect of up to 2m people returning to their home countries after not being eligible for a new visa.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
You are so stupid it’s unbelievable. It’s like in your old age you have lost all ability to see the consequences of your actions and ideas.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
I tried to persuade a politician friend to replace our entire legal framework with "Thou shalt not be a dick". I was imagining the beak at a trial (I may have been picturing Peter Cook) just frowning over his specs ".... And so, defendant. Were you in fact... being a dick?".... "Yes, your honour - I think I was".
But he claimed it was a bit trickier than that in practice. The woke blob in action, is what I say.
You'd like chicks-with-dicks to be replaced by chicks-who-are-dicks?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
You are so stupid it’s unbelievable. It’s like in your old age you have lost all ability to see the consequences of your actions and ideas.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
Oh Hello Mr Passive Aggressive!
Who says Farage shouldn't be subject to scrutiny?
And who said PB is meant to be a barometer of public opinion? It is certainly worth knowing that it isn't, as you end up reading a load of people agreeing with each other that something is terribly awful and beyond the pale, whilst the public are voting for it
Sorry to hear about your personal troubles. All good wishes to you
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Labour are briefing out that they are going to push through an extension to reach ILR to 10 years and apply it to people already in the pipeline. Let's see if it's true. If it is then ultimately this stops being an issue anyway as all of the boriswave will have their ILR dates after the next election at which point visas can be ended and not renewed, terms on unskilled visas can be amended so that they don't accrue residency rights and existing skilled worker visa holders can be pushed into the higher income brackets.
None of those measures are deportation, it's more like becoming more selective over who is allowed to stay in the country and taken together they could have the effect of up to 2m people returning to their home countries after not being eligible for a new visa.
It still feels like this isn't the main problem - the problem is boat people getting arriving, getting into the asylum queue for years, too many asylum claims being granted, and not being able to remove tbose who have failed.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
The people in parliament are supreme. We should get what we vote for. Aren't you meant to be a lefty? This is a core principle of true democracy and universal suffrage, you should support it. Not lots of rich lawyers who game our corrupt system
Is he repeating the allegation that Charlie Kirk was killed by Mossad to hide the fact that Kirk was about to reveal that Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence?
Is the alleged killer likely to be an agent of Mossad, and what on earth would convince him to do what he's done in the course of his duties?
I think it's unlikely the alleged killer is an agent of Mossad. However, it is worth remember that Israel did give us Dana International, so there is definitely a trans element there if you look closely enough...
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
You are so stupid it’s unbelievable. It’s like in your old age you have lost all ability to see the consequences of your actions and ideas.
Ignoring the consequences of your actions and ideas be the whole of the law, as Aleister Crowley didn't quite say.
If abolishing all laws is your intention, can you let us know when you are next away, so we can all co.e round and take all your stuff? I've got more tableware than I know what to do with already, but I'm sure yours is more interesting than mine.
Not seen any discussion of ITV's COVID contracts programme. From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts. Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them. Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
60% of PPE supplied through VIP lane was unusable.
Lateral flow test startup company Innova lobbied Cummings and was awarded £5bn in govt contracts.
Dom, kicking back earning his crust from substack subscribers to his pearls of wisdom.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Not seen any discussion of ITV's COVID contracts programme. From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts. Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them. Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
Your occasional reminder that, while the present government are useless, they are not corrupt fraudsters like the last lot.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Labour are briefing out that they are going to push through an extension to reach ILR to 10 years and apply it to people already in the pipeline. Let's see if it's true. If it is then ultimately this stops being an issue anyway as all of the boriswave will have their ILR dates after the next election at which point visas can be ended and not renewed, terms on unskilled visas can be amended so that they don't accrue residency rights and existing skilled worker visa holders can be pushed into the higher income brackets.
None of those measures are deportation, it's more like becoming more selective over who is allowed to stay in the country and taken together they could have the effect of up to 2m people returning to their home countries after not being eligible for a new visa.
It still feels like this isn't the main problem - the problem is boat people getting arriving, getting into the asylum queue for years, too many asylum claims being granted, and not being able to remove tbose who have failed.
Yes, agreed but they are both big welfare liabilities. For the asylum seeker issue the only way out is to reduce our acceptance rate to something much lower, close to 0% for those not specifically invited and sign third country deportation deals to remove them and as Gallowgate has pointed out, disapply the HRA from deportations with primary legislation. Offer the failed asylum seekers a choice of returning home with $1000 or being deported to a safe third country. The next government will need to have a plan and start on day one. We will need to deport a thousand per week to make the deterrent work.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Err, that Act doesn't do anything nor does it give anyone else the power to do anything. It would have no effect because it has no operative clauses.
Not seen any discussion of ITV's COVID contracts programme. From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts. Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them. Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
Your occasional reminder that, while the present government are useless, they are not corrupt fraudsters like the last lot.
With two possible caveats: a) not as far as we yet know, and b) they haven't had long enough yet. Pure fantasy.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
I tried to persuade a politician friend to replace our entire legal framework with "Thou shalt not be a dick". I was imagining the beak at a trial (I may have been picturing Peter Cook) just frowning over his specs ".... And so, defendant. Were you in fact... being a dick?".... "Yes, your honour - I think I was".
But he claimed it was a bit trickier than that in practice. The woke blob in action, is what I say.
As a way of navigating one's own life, short, simple, positive and general is good. Two commandments are better than ten. Thou shalts are better than thou shalt nots.
Unfortunately, you tend to end up with a standard that hardly anyone really meets. So if you are looking for laws and punishments, you need long, complex, negative and specific. Which is a shame.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Err, that Act doesn't do anything nor does it give anyone else the power to do anything. It would have no effect because it has no operative clauses.
This is the necessary preamble, derrrr (so it cannot be opposed), the juicy bits come next
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
The people in parliament are supreme. We should get what we vote for. Aren't you meant to be a lefty? This is a core principle of true democracy and universal suffrage, you should support it. Not lots of rich lawyers who game our corrupt system
What is needed is an overriding clause, applying to all law, that states that the common good overrides all other decisions. It should apply particularly to planning decisions.
The other parties seem to be trying to pick holes in Reform's "kick them out" policy, rather than just saying that it is offensive and immoral.
Reform has succeeded in moving the argument onto their turf.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Reform’s policy started with “deport people who are here illegally”. Fine. Then it was “deport people here legally who commit a serious crime”. Fine. Now it appears to be “deport people here legally”. Where’s this going to end up.
It is a gradual shifting of the Overton window. It’s reasonable to ask where it ends. But there is silly hyperbole on here about what are quite moderate positions.
Regularly requiring non citizens to justify their right to stay as a guest in a host country is not strange. I’ve had to go through such a process six times when overseas in various places. Thems the rules, I sucked them up and played by them.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Lots of people will be fearful that the reasonable questions of where this might end might include them and their loved ones, particularly given the way some people are talking.
The counterpoint to that is hate.
Also: your last paragraph becomes somewhat irrelevant if rules are applied retrospectively.
As per my comment above, because of the extreme cost of applying for full citizenship, a great many people have preferred to consider indefinite right to remain as being essentially equivalent to citizenship. It is not. And unless / until you are a citizen, it is prudent to accept that the rules of your host country might change.
Farage should however issue a clarification around legal spouses of British citizens hailing from core British allies. There should be a nominal admin fee for such people to convert to full citizenship and the cloud lifted from them. They are not his target but have been hit by a blunt weapon today.
What does "hailing from core British allies" mean?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
Leaves rather open the issue of whether cattle taken in withernam are replevisible. Does it reinstate frankalmoign? What about the writ of praemunire? This is shoddy drafting.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
I didn’t say that Parliament doesn’t have that power, I was just picking a hole in the draft “law” you lifted off Reddit.
The fact is that Britain has been so successful historically because of the rule of law and all the lawyers and “meddling” that comes with it. Messing with that is just the kind of constitutional vandalism of the Blair ilk that the likes of @Luckyguy1983 apparently hate so much.
I think and hope you are trolling with your “throw the lawyers in prison for doing their jobs” lark because ultimately if you turn us into countries without the rule of law our fate will be the same as those - miserable authoritarian dystopias.
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Sadly, stories like this are all too common.
Don't get old.
I can't help it !!!!!
"We looked at Castlehill and we just fell in love with the place. It was an absolute dream," she said.
"They had a piano as you went into the entrance. It had a cinema room. It's absolutely beautiful. It's a stunning building."
As a friend of mine said, based on his own parental experience, 'do not be beguiled by the look of the place or how nice the gardens are'.
The other parties seem to be trying to pick holes in Reform's "kick them out" policy, rather than just saying that it is offensive and immoral.
Reform has succeeded in moving the argument onto their turf.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Reform’s policy started with “deport people who are here illegally”. Fine. Then it was “deport people here legally who commit a serious crime”. Fine. Now it appears to be “deport people here legally”. Where’s this going to end up.
It is a gradual shifting of the Overton window. It’s reasonable to ask where it ends. But there is silly hyperbole on here about what are quite moderate positions.
Regularly requiring non citizens to justify their right to stay as a guest in a host country is not strange. I’ve had to go through such a process six times when overseas in various places. Thems the rules, I sucked them up and played by them.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Lots of people will be fearful that the reasonable questions of where this might end might include them and their loved ones, particularly given the way some people are talking.
The counterpoint to that is hate.
Also: your last paragraph becomes somewhat irrelevant if rules are applied retrospectively.
As per my comment above, because of the extreme cost of applying for full citizenship, a great many people have preferred to consider indefinite right to remain as being essentially equivalent to citizenship. It is not. And unless / until you are a citizen, it is prudent to accept that the rules of your host country might change.
Farage should however issue a clarification around legal spouses of British citizens hailing from core British allies. There should be a nominal admin fee for such people to convert to full citizenship and the cloud lifted from them. They are not his target but have been hit by a blunt weapon today.
What does "hailing from core British allies" mean?
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Sadly, stories like this are all too common.
Don't get old.
I can't help it !!!!!
I am 64 later this week. I feel a slightly whimsical Beatles song coming on.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
But it hasn't even been cancelled by Natural England. They objected to a planning application, and the Council opted to refuse PP - unless it works differently to every planning application I have seen.
I think that the issue has been under discussion for the best part of 5 years.
That's my main objection - we are getting false narratives.
Even the campaign by "Looking for Growth" starts "DO NOT LET NATURAL ENGLAND RUIN BRITAIN'S COMMUNITIES", which is not what is being done.
Sorry but @MattW, do you have anything to support your claim that planning permission can be allowed by a local council in defiance of Natural England? They also tried to avoid responsibility for the bat tunnel, as if this was just some whim of the HS2 management team.
AI tells me this:
British councils are not permitted to grant planning permission if doing so would be contrary to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, particularly when European Protected Species (EPS) are involved. Natural England, as the competent authority for licensing under these regulations, must be satisfied that three statutory tests are met before a licence can be granted for activities that might otherwise be unlawful, including development affecting EPS. These tests require that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, no satisfactory alternative exists, and the action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species' population at a favourable conservation status.
Ai
That goes straight back to Natural England being fully responsible, AND the ultimate culprit being their enforcement of European Union retained law.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
The query is welcome - planning law is complex, and it's easy for any of us to get details wrong.
According to my AI query, the Local Planning Authority (info: in England the LPA is the Local District or Unitary Council, or the National Park) can overrule a Natural England objection, but have to have cogent reasons:
AI Overview
Yes, a planning authority can overrule Natural England's objection, but they must have cogent reasons for doing so. While Natural England's advice carries significant weight, particularly regarding Habitats Regulations, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not bound by it and can depart from their advice if they have strong, objective evidence showing there will be no negative impacts on nature.
I'll have a bit of a dig later. One development I was involved with was nearly caught in in a Special Protection Area for Birds - which extend a surprising distance (when there was a charge to provide alternative foraging ground). But we were just outside the zone.
How on earth could any council wanting a kite festival to proceed provide such evidence in the face of 'the experts' at Natural England objecting? And who is the final arbiter of such a dispute? Sorry but this is typically mealy mouthed 'not our fault guv' nonsense. Natural England are fully to blame for this decision, there was no realistic prospect of the kite festival 'winning' this argument, and the campaigner was entirely correct to blame them.
Nah.
The planning committee/ council could easily wangle this. We have control of timings. We can ignore statutory consultees, we can just ignore the advice saying we have given the matter due consideration with an open mind and have found the argument to have failed to convince us wrt to the environmental impacts vs economic and social benefits blah blah.
The council must have wanted to lose the event from its calendar, presumably because it was becoming a pita and or it was not worth the bother.
Planning Committees are surprisingly self contained and independently minded. They are an absolute bugger to control. Totally unreliable. You can’t trust them.
Planning officers on the other hand are likely to kowtow to Natural England. By default. But the committee will please itself. If it wants to ignore the officers. It will.
I've had a dig, and - this is correct, but irrelevant.
It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
Basically, you're saying she's like her ex, only with one big redeeming characteristic?
Andy is stupid, foolish, greedy, venal, arrogant, contemptible, corrupt, self-serving, patronising and lazy. As well as having poor judgement.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Since your Enabling Act will get rid of the laws allowing you to claim your beautifully refurbished Camden flat belongs to you, I will now claim it and will DM the address to which you can send me the keys.
For those on the conservative right, can someone please explain to me why welfare spending has apparently become so out of control? PIP, mobility etc that gets discussed.
The last I paid close attention to it, we had a Conservative-led government for 14 years that started out with a mission of simplifying and cutting welfare spending under Universal Credit? What happened since? Which Conservative Prime Minister is to blame?
It seems mad that everyone is expecting Labour to be the ones cutting welfare spending after 14 years of Tory rule. It should have been sorted years ago, taking as read that it needs to be.
Covid cost over £400 billion mainly in supporting people in work
It also left lots of people with Long COVID, which significantly increased the number of people with long-term health problems.
There are quite a few planes circling Oslo now, including a diverted Barcelona-Copenhagen flight. That's a downer for them. I can't see anything approaching or landing at Oslo at the moment.
Stockholm, where there have also been reports of drones, still operating normally.
Edit: after a few circles all lining up on approach now.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Because Acts cannot be judicially reviewed, but the use of powers can. That’s just the orthodox position. If you suddenly start stating that certain Acts themselves cannot be challenged, the question is, what about Acts that don’t state that?
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
Sky thoughtfully have some numbers.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Sadly, stories like this are all too common.
Don't get old.
I can't help it !!!!!
I am 64 later this week. I feel a slightly whimsical Beatles song coming on.
You bastard. I was about to go to bed and now I have o-bla-di o-bla-dah stuck in my head
Was the Duchess of York one of the offerings, at Epstein's parties?
Careful: you don't want to get sued by a bunch of paedophiles for libel.
I am not a fan of the Yorks but I have started reading "Entitled" and was surprised when the author claimed that although Sarah said she had 6 O levels, she had only 2 as 4 were D grade. Grades D and E were passes in O levels. In GCSEs D is a fail. I am surprised that in a book which claims to be thoroughly researched there was such a basic mistake. ,
Sarah is rather stupid and very foolish (with awful judgement) but fundamentally a decent person
Basically, you're saying she's like her ex, only with one big redeeming characteristic?
Andy is stupid, foolish, greedy, venal, arrogant, contemptible, corrupt, self-serving, patronising and lazy. As well as having poor judgement.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Since your Enabling Act will get rid of the laws allowing you to claim your beautifully refurbished Camden flat belongs to you, I will now claim it and will DM the address to which you can send me the keys.
Too many of you are coveting my Georgian glassware. I am now going to amend my Supreme law with the "leave Leon's flat alone" clause, subsection 2
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Sadly, stories like this are all too common.
Don't get old.
I can't help it !!!!!
I am 64 later this week. I feel a slightly whimsical Beatles song coming on.
Went to a shopping outlet with my good lady today and struggled with my mobility
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Because Acts cannot be judicially reviewed, but the use of powers can. That’s just the orthodox position. If you suddenly start stating that certain Acts themselves cannot be challenged, the question is, what about Acts that don’t state that?
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
But in this case the act says the powers themselves (their extent, limit) are not justiciable, not only their usage.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
There is an absolutely fascinating book entitled "When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World Paperback" published in 1956. The 3 authors studied a UFO cult who repeatedly predicted that UFOs would arrive and whisk them away, which kept not happening. When their first prophecy didn't happen, instead of admitting they were wrong, there was a process of cognitive dissonance and the believers rationalised what had happened and came up with a new prophecy. It was only with repeated failures of prophecy that things started to fall apart. I strongly recommend it.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Because Acts cannot be judicially reviewed, but the use of powers can. That’s just the orthodox position. If you suddenly start stating that certain Acts themselves cannot be challenged, the question is, what about Acts that don’t state that?
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
But in this case the act says the powers themselves (their extent, limit) are not justiciable, not only their usage.
The distinction is not relevant to the point I am making. You are just restating the orthodox position.
Comments
From 1975 to 1987 attainment in an O-level subject was indicated by a grade A, B, C, D or E, of which grade A was the highest and grade E the lowest. Grades A, B and C represented the former O-level Pass. Grades D and E indicated a lower standard of attainment, but were still judged sufficient to be recorded on the certificate. Grades below E were ungraded and not recorded on the certificate.
https://www.aqa.org.uk/exams-administration/after-results/exam-certificates/o-level
While the previous “pass” grade was replaced by A/B/C under the new system it was pass/fail measure
Let's be frank, plenty of people came through COVID absolutely fine. There is a lot of focus on those who we supported via furlough (which was really support for business), but there were also millions of people in well-paid jobs, large gardens etc who had an idyllic spring and summer. I was stuck in a poxy flat without a girlfriend, so it wasn't all good, but I should really have been paying significantly more tax during that period. Instead I saved £10,000s which I spent on a year-long foreign holiday.
The councillors who found themselves accidentally running counties, they probably are suffering. Hey ho.
(I still mostly suspect that Farage will notice the risk in 2028 or so and find an excuse to do a runner, like he did in 2016 and 2019.)
This would be true of everything. Civil Aviation Authority, police, NHS. Not an option.
This is why only in new or revolution/anarchy prone countries does the 'clean slate' opportunity arise. France for example.
BREAKING: Disney said 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' will return to the air on Tuesday after it suspended the talk-show host following threats by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission over comments the host made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk
From the VIP lane only companies referred by Conservative politicians got contracts.
Chairman of experienced PPE supply company Arco Ltd saying how they had to supply NHS trusts directly with their compliant PPE as govt dept just ignored them.
Says they were far from alone amongst long established PPE suppliers
The planning committee/ council could easily wangle this. We have control of timings. We can ignore statutory consultees, we can just ignore the advice saying we have given the matter due consideration with an open mind and have found the argument to have failed to convince us wrt to the environmental impacts vs economic and social benefits blah blah.
The council must have wanted to lose the event from its calendar, presumably because it was becoming a pita and or it was not worth the bother.
Planning Committees are surprisingly self contained and independently minded. They are an absolute bugger to control. Totally unreliable. You can’t trust them.
Planning officers on the other hand are likely to kowtow to Natural England. By default. But the committee will please itself. If it wants to ignore the officers. It will.
If this fails, then we will get something not-peaceful, which no one wants
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clylxpjdx8wo
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
America has been saved.
We are all saved.
Late night chat shows shall inherit the earth.
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
I make it, scaled up, around 10000 UK deaths at the hands of the authorities, around 70000 political prisoners and around 700k exiles, all mainly leftists.
I'm trying to assess my own ranking as a UK leftist in order to determine what will happen to me. A PB commenter tbf, isn't high up the food chain, so I might escape actual political exile, though whether I'd want to be here is another matter.
Eagles and a few of the more politically prominent on here could be in something of a pickle though.
Not so bad.
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz69nppezlzo
"France transfixed by murder trial without a body"
But he claimed it was a bit trickier than that in practice. The woke blob in action, is what I say.
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
We all view this from a partisan perspective. My view would mirror yours BUT my privilege and geography must be distorting my retrospect.
I think we will have to credit those making the decisions with good intentions within a distorted information landscape.
If they knew better they wouldn’t have made the choices they did.
And I’m pretty sure our emergency protocol will fail next time too. People are cave apes living a crazy life.
PS
Fully accept the corruption was endemic.
And I’m not thinking that was inevitable.
It’s the lockdown timings I’m forgiving of.
I wrote that in the bath so I am sure they can do better but as they say, less is more.
Or the UAPs invading America while cunningly disguised exactly like planes.
Don't get old.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
None of those measures are deportation, it's more like becoming more selective over who is allowed to stay in the country and taken together they could have the effect of up to 2m people returning to their home countries after not being eligible for a new visa.
"OMG Lord Hermer is on trial"
Is that it?
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/yEQ5wa/to-paagrepet-for-ulovlig-droneflyging-i-oslo-sentrum?s=09
If abolishing all laws is your intention, can you let us know when you are next away, so we can all co.e round and take all your stuff? I've got more tableware than I know what to do with already, but I'm sure yours is more interesting than mine.
Dom, kicking back earning his crust from substack subscribers to his pearls of wisdom.
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Unfortunately, you tend to end up with a standard that hardly anyone really meets. So if you are looking for laws and punishments, you need long, complex, negative and specific. Which is a shame.
Pick what you will
The fact is that Britain has been so successful historically because of the rule of law and all the lawyers and “meddling” that comes with it. Messing with that is just the kind of constitutional vandalism of the Blair ilk that the likes of @Luckyguy1983 apparently hate so much.
I think and hope you are trolling with your “throw the lawyers in prison for doing their jobs” lark because ultimately if you turn us into countries without the rule of law our fate will be the same as those - miserable authoritarian dystopias.
"They had a piano as you went into the entrance. It had a cinema room. It's absolutely beautiful. It's a stunning building."
As a friend of mine said, based on his own parental experience, 'do not be beguiled by the look of the place or how nice the gardens are'.
It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
The Planning Inspectorate report is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668e8a3449b9c0597fdafa53/COM_3334565_Therfield_Heath_Application_Decision_10-07-24.docx
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one.
https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
Stockholm, where there have also been reports of drones, still operating normally.
Edit: after a few circles all lining up on approach now.
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
Looks like a mobility scooter is beckoning
According to some of the flightradar geeks, a Swedush Awacs aircraft is up in the air and sniffing about to see what's going on.