General Election 2019 - Conservative with Majority

Add another party to the BBC who are getting a little bit twitchy now Boris romped home...


Lady Hale is on the way out, but has repeated that the Supreme Court's decision was about legality not politics.
Where's the Bullshit button? Not for you but for the crap that she has spouted. When the top three practicing judges in the High Court say that it was political so none of the courts business, yet the eleven judges in the Supreme Court say the opposite then there is something seriously wrong. Especially when nine of the Supreme Court judges had grounds to recuse themselves due to EU connections but didn't.
 

tgo

Old-Salt
The irony is that given the unexpected number of seats gained Boris is facing a dilemma-many of the new Tory MPs would see their seats disappear including Workington.
Would it take effect immediately though, or take place once the next GE came about ? which would be fairer.

It has been done before, what happened then?
 
The Supreme Court's decision was purely political.

Prorogation of parliament is a normal act in parliamentary procedure. It happens all the time and that can be shown historically. What Hale and the rest of the SC did not like was Boris's use of it for his own ends. They didn't like his use of it and therefore their decision was politically motivated.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
FFS!!! They can't take a hint, can they...? Concerns...? Yeah - postal vote and student double-vote fraud by Labour supporters is the only concern when it comes to how we achieve an election result these days!

View attachment 438956
No concerns from this call sign princess
 

Dubb_al_Ibn

War Hero
The Supreme Court's decision was purely political.

Prorogation of parliament is a normal act in parliamentary procedure. It happens all the time and that can be shown historically. What Hale and the rest of the SC did not like was Boris's use of it for his own ends. They didn't like his use of it and therefore their decision was politically motivated.

I caught one of this year's Reith lectures yesterday (currently on Radio 4 and also on one of the BBC channels (Politics?)). Lord Sumption was arguing exactly this point that politicians are unwilling to come to an agreement on divisive political matters and are taking recourse in the legislature. He argued that while the legislature exists to stop politicians overstepping their powers it is not there to adjudicate on decisions proposed/implemented by them.

He also argued that referenda are not the way to govern a country as, again, they promote devisiveness and ultimately hostility in the divided electorate and are the antithesis of compromise and political debate.

As an aside, the lecture I heard was a beautiful example of a clear and well-structured argument and streets ahead of the "sound-bite" type utterings we have seen politicians resort to over the last three years.
 
Where's the Bullshit button? Not for you but for the crap that she has spouted. When the top three practicing judges in the High Court say that it was political so none of the courts business, yet the eleven judges in the Supreme Court say the opposite then there is something seriously wrong. Especially when nine of the Supreme Court judges had grounds to recuse themselves due to EU connections but didn't.
this would be the Lady Hale that was schmoozing with the Remoaner grandees and basking in remain adulation afterward? No, nothing political there by the old bat.
 
I caught one of this year's Reith lectures yesterday (currently on Radio 4 and also on one of the BBC channels (Politics?)). Lord Sumption was arguing exactly this point that politicians are unwilling to come to an agreement on divisive political matters and are taking recourse in the legislature. He argued that while the legislature exists to stop politicians overstepping their powers it is not there to adjudicate on decisions proposed/implemented by them.

He also argued that referenda are not the way to govern a country as, again, they promote devisiveness and ultimately hostility in the divided electorate and are the antithesis of compromise and political debate.

As an aside, the lecture I heard was a beautiful example of a clear and well-structured argument and streets ahead of the "sound-bite" type utterings we have seen politicians resort to over the last three years.
Therein lies the conundrum.
All democratic votes are divisive: that is their raison d’être. The aim is to separate the ‘Fors’ from the ‘Againsts’ and the ‘Don’t Knows / Couldn’t Cares’.
The result of a vote inevitably divides the voters/electorate into these three groups.
Politicians, particularly, should know this: they go practically Pavlovian at the sound of a Division Bell.
 
1577621159423.png
 
Therein lies the conundrum.
All democratic votes are divisive: that is their raison d’être. The aim is to separate the ‘Fors’ from the ‘Againsts’ and the ‘Don’t Knows / Couldn’t Cares’.
The result of a vote inevitably divides the voters/electorate into these three groups.
Politicians, particularly, should know this: they go practically Pavlovian at the sound of a Division Bell.
whats different?

the social media echo chamber. Remainers didn’t shrug and move on, they force fed themselves a diet of doom, gloom, disaster and tyranny.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I caught one of this year's Reith lectures yesterday (currently on Radio 4 and also on one of the BBC channels (Politics?)). Lord Sumption was arguing exactly this point that politicians are unwilling to come to an agreement on divisive political matters and are taking recourse in the legislature. He argued that while the legislature exists to stop politicians overstepping their powers it is not there to adjudicate on decisions proposed/implemented by them.

He also argued that referenda are not the way to govern a country as, again, they promote devisiveness and ultimately hostility in the divided electorate and are the antithesis of compromise and political debate.

As an aside, the lecture I heard was a beautiful example of a clear and well-structured argument and streets ahead of the "sound-bite" type utterings we have seen politicians resort to over the last three years.
lets get this straight a Lord (a political appointee) is moaning that the two main parties had so little to choose between them that neither were able to convince an electorate to give them a working majority. This is in fact the politicians job not ours the electorate. As for referenda we had been promised one and it was withheld from us until the politicians thought that they would get the result they wanted.
To do so it had to be binding to get the electorate to turn out. Again the politicians failed to persuade us plebs that they knew better for us.
The political response to the vote leave win was to prevaricate and waste parliamentary time, time which the tax payer picks up the tab for.
The one sensible politician who decided to take the electorate with him and win a majority is now the PM.
That is what we pay the idiots to do and yet this unelected Lord says its wrong?
He is part of the problem not the solution, I don't want consensus politics that please no one outside of the BBC North London Elite.
I want a politician who will put this country first and the people within. I certainly believe we have one.


In regard to the last paragraph and structured argument, this is possibly why he was made a lord as he can't be trusted in the commons, I blame Blair for sound bites and handwringing politics.
 
Last edited:
Again I blame Blair for this, do away with the silly thing
Which silly thing, the Supreme Court or Blair (or both)?
 

Dubb_al_Ibn

War Hero
In regard to the last paragraph and structured argument, this is possibly why he was made a lord as he can't be trusted in the commons, I blame Blair for sound bites and handwringing politics.
He's never been in the Commons. He's not a politician. His title came with his legal appointment.
I quite like clear and well-structured argument from a judge (and noted historian).
 
Would it take effect immediately though, or take place once the next GE came about ? which would be fairer.

It has been done before, what happened then?
The new boundaries would apply for the 2024 election. THose whose seats are scrapped will remain in parliament until the next GE, whereby they would have to either retire or find new seats to contest.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Current Affairs, News and Analysis 682
Bravo_Bravo Current Affairs, News and Analysis 81
Auld-Yin Brexit 11870

Latest Threads

Top