[Politics] Tory law breakers

[Bold Seagull]

Not sure where you get that smug certainty from to be frank.

They are both broken and honestly I don't think much of either of them. In the US, you can't campaign unless you are a billionaire, but at least they have a 2 term restriction. I think that's a good thing, unless we honestly believe there isn't a single other person out of 350,000,000 capable of running the country.

What's so great about our system? We have an upper chamber that is partially made up of people who inherit their position, and we have FPTP which is utterly broken serving just two (3 if you include the SNP) parties, as evidenced by the two biggest parties being taken over by extremists leaving a large rump of the population disenfranchised. In fact it's worse than that - your vote doesn't matter except in a handful of swing seats.

If you think our system is broken, when are people going to realise that centrism hasn't really worked either. right of centre early 90s, back across to left of centre, back to right of centre, now deserting the centre again to the right as we did in the 80s.

What is the terror of socialism in people that have never experienced that kind of government or politics? Is it what our Dads told us, is it the 70s which had a whole host of reasons for economic turmoil? Is it a hangover from the Cold War and those Commies? It's not extremist as you put it, unless you class Denmark and other like minded European countries as run by extremists perhaps?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You are right. But Stewart. Clark etc are all kicked out of the party.....

I'm not so sure. I can see a Vote of no confidence and Ken Clarke nominated as a temporary Prime Minister.

 

[Simster]

If you think our system is broken, when are people going to realise that centrism hasn't really worked either. right of centre early 90s, back across to left of centre, back to right of centre, now deserting the centre again to the right as we did in the 80s.

What is the terror of socialism in people that have never experienced that kind of government or politics? Is it what our Dads told us, is it the 70s which had a whole host of reasons for economic turmoil? Is it a hangover from the Cold War and those Commies? It's not extremist as you put it, unless you class Denmark and other like minded European countries as run by extremists perhaps?

Socialism doesn't scare me, based on Scandinavian success I'd take it in a heartbeat over various horrendous Tory governments of which this is the worst. That said, I still feel a policy of pragmatism works best because I'm honestly not sure we're ready for socialism. We have a cultural problem where too many people consider being bone idle as a reasonable life style choice. That simply isn't a cultural phenomenon that you see in Denmark or Finland.

And your assertion that centrism doesn't work is absolute nonsense. If you want to espouse the values of socalism based on what, three of four (Nordic) countries where it is an undoubted success, then I'll point to twice as many countries where liberal centrist policies have been successful too.

 

[Curious Orange]

Not sure where you get that smug certainty from to be frank.

They are both broken and honestly I don't think much of either of them. In the US, you can't campaign unless you are a billionaire, but at least they have a 2 term restriction. I think that's a good thing, unless we honestly believe there isn't a single other person out of 350,000,000 capable of running the country.

What's so great about our system? We have an upper chamber that is partially made up of people who inherit their position, and we have FPTP which is utterly broken serving just two (3 if you include the SNP) parties, as evidenced by the two biggest parties being taken over by extremists leaving a large rump of the population disenfranchised. In fact it's worse than that - your vote doesn't matter except in a handful of swing seats.

One of the Reith Lectures was on the subject of written and un-written constitutions, an interesting listen and quite thought provoking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005t85

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wonder how many people knew the word prorogue even existed until a few days ago, and now it is bandied about in every sentence, being used as frequently as lmfao or lol

And your point is?

The joy of life is learning new stuff every day.

 

[Gritt23]

So the clamours to come back immediately, ie tomorrow, is utter bollocks as they wouldn't ordinarily be in anyway?

Pretty much. A lot of nonsense is being spouted. We'd always see Parliament shut down for Conference season, and the extended prorogue was only a matter of a few days. 3 or 4, I think. So it was far more a case of grandstanding than anything else, as is recalling the MPs now. We still have the Tory Conference to go, so is Parliament going to suggest they don't have a Conference this year, or that they continue with Parliament without them?

And it's not as if, once back, they ever actually do anything positive anyway.

 

[Questions]

And your point is?

The joy of life is learning new stuff every day.

Exactly. Look how Theresa May learnt from The Speaker of the House and how Boris J learnt from the Supreme courts.

 

[darkwolf666]

And your point is?

The joy of life is learning new stuff every day.

What, and repeating it ad nauseum?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So the clamours to come back immediately, ie tomorrow, is utter bollocks as they wouldn't ordinarily be in anyway?

The committees can meet, and MP's surgeries held, which were all suspended whilst the houses were prorogued. The civil servants were also suspended from working.

It also means that any bills that were in progress, after first and second readings are still in place, such as the Domestic Violence bill. Had the suspension continued, they would be dead in the water and therefore have to start from scratch.

 

[A1X]

Apart from voters.

Tory poll ratings are dropping right now according to most polls.

 

[Brovion]

And your point is?

The joy of life is learning new stuff every day.

True, nevertheless I think he has a point. And without wishing to labour my own (too much) our political system, our constitution is an arcane labyrinth of unwritten conventions and unelected officials that has just developed hode-podge over the centuries. Politicians can (and do) hide behind the fact that we don't really fully understand it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

To say the Labour party conference is running, there's a lot of people in the HoC today.

[tweet]1176807490656358401[/tweet]

 

[lawros left foot]

Well, it appears they can’t help lying.

The Attorney General has stated time and time again in the House, that the High Court ruled in favour of the Government, they didn’t, and that the Supreme Court has made ‘ new law’, they haven’t.The Supreme Court ruling was at pains to point out, only Parliament can make new laws.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well, it appears they can’t help lying.

The Attorney General has stated time and time again in the House, that the High Court ruled in favour of the Government, they didn’t, and that the Supreme Court has made ‘ new law’, they haven’t.The Supreme Court ruling was at pains to point out, only Parliament can make new laws.

Geoffery Cox is swinging haymakers like a boxer with both eyes almost swollen shut.

 

[DumLum]

Tory poll ratings are dropping right now according to most polls.

Conference bounce.

 

[schmunk]

Conference bounce.

...that's if parliament lets them have one!

 

[fly high]

Well, it appears they can’t help lying.

The Attorney General has stated time and time again in the House, that the High Court ruled in favour of the Government, they didn’t, and that the Supreme Court has made ‘ new law’, they haven’t.The Supreme Court ruling was at pains to point out, only Parliament can make new laws.

I saw a retired Lord Justice being interviewed on TV yesterday morning. He said the judges had had to 'invent a new rule' (his words), to me as a lay person not exactly a law but certainly a new interpretation of our unwritten constitution. If it really is a new rule then not sure how anyone can be breaking a law (rule) which didn't exist until the judges came up with it. This whole thing is just a total mess. I blame the lot of them.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I saw a retired Lord Justice being interviewed on TV yesterday morning. He said the judges had had to 'invent a new rule' (his words), to me as a lay person not exactly a law but certainly a new interpretation of our unwritten constitution. If it really is a new rule then not sure how anyone can be breaking a law (rule) which didn't exist until the judges came up with it. This whole thing is just a total mess. I blame the lot of them.

That is what are our laws are though, a constantly evolving set of rules built upon case law but changing with each new ruling. The constitution is a set of conventions, and if those conventions are tested to and beyond their limits, then it is right that the law takes a view accordingly. Proroguing Parliament to avoid scrutiny and oversight rather than just set a domestic agenda is not what it is there for, and because no government has tried to test that before, a new rule has had to be made because the government in the eyes of the law exceeded those conventions.

 

[pasty]

After watching the incredible scenes in The Commons yesterday, I have simply given up hope of this current government, or this current opposition, achieving absolutely anything.

Just an endless round of pantomime "oh yes you did" "oh no we didn't"

CJTC's, the lot of them.

 

[schmunk]

...that's if parliament lets them have one!

And whoomp, there it is. Nope!