LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Big revision in public finances has blown a big hole in the latest spending round.

So much so the current self imposed rules around the deficit have been broken, unless Javid rows back on all his spending promises.

HMRC fat fingered the Corp tax estimates and student loans are more spenny than previously thought.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shoutout to lizz truss for accidentally selling arms to the Saudis.

The Tory cup of talent floweth over

Love how they are so bad at actual governance that this doesn’t even garner any comment.

Yes - just another "oopsie, what am I like?"

Dammit, this keeps happening. Soz everyone, we seem to have illegally sold some more arms.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big revision in public finances has blown a big hole in the latest spending round.

So much so the current self imposed rules around the deficit have been broken, unless Javid rows back on all his spending promises.

HMRC fat fingered the Corp tax estimates and student loans are more spenny than previously thought.

Clearly bad blood between Javid and Johnson/Cummings after his SPAD was unilaterally sacked and his spending rules ignored in all the giveaway promises, so this will just drive a bigger wedge.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big revision in public finances has blown a big hole in the latest spending round.

So much so the current self imposed rules around the deficit have been broken, unless Javid rows back on all his spending promises.

HMRC fat fingered the Corp tax estimates and student loans are more spenny than previously thought.

Clearly bad blood between Javid and Johnson/Cummings after his SPAD was unilaterally sacked and his spending rules ignored in all the giveaway promises, so this will just drive a bigger wedge.

More likely to rewrite the rules on fiscal discipline- maybe just cut and paste off McDonnell.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big revision in public finances has blown a big hole in the latest spending round.

So much so the current self imposed rules around the deficit have been broken, unless Javid rows back on all his spending promises.

HMRC fat fingered the Corp tax estimates and student loans are more spenny than previously thought.

Clearly bad blood between Javid and Johnson/Cummings after his SPAD was unilaterally sacked and his spending rules ignored in all the giveaway promises, so this will just drive a bigger wedge.

More likely to rewrite the rules on fiscal discipline- maybe just cut and paste off McDonnell.

For some reason I think Javid does actually believe in keeping to the rules, but obviously what Dom says goes.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big revision in public finances has blown a big hole in the latest spending round.

So much so the current self imposed rules around the deficit have been broken, unless Javid rows back on all his spending promises.

HMRC fat fingered the Corp tax estimates and student loans are more spenny than previously thought.

Clearly bad blood between Javid and Johnson/Cummings after his SPAD was unilaterally sacked and his spending rules ignored in all the giveaway promises, so this will just drive a bigger wedge.

More likely to rewrite the rules on fiscal discipline- maybe just cut and paste off McDonnell.

For some reason I think Javid does actually believe in keeping to the rules, but obviously what Dom says goes.

I am starting to see BoJo as the patsy. I think Chancellor can stand up to anybody (or get fired) but I imagine he is positioning himself to be the next leader

cycleclinic

I'm not sure the government even counts as a government any more. Bad news is just noise now, its ot even shocking anymore.

briantrumpet

So now Johnson is promising massive spending projects and tax cuts. Magic money tree anyone?

pblakeney

The electioneering has obviously began.

shirley_basso

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

morstar

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

He has provided the opportunity to demonstrate that there are limitations to the tools available to a minority government to bypass parliament.
Democracy is the winner here.
Hopefully, longer term the two party duopoly is weakened by his extremism and we can have electoral reform.
Not his intended consequences, but one he has directly catalysed and the 2nd he may contribute to, but only time will tell.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

Here's the Beeb article on his track record in politics overall, including positives and negatives - as likely as any source to be reasonably even handed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48663963

morstar

Do you think we could have a national 'Point and laugh' campaign against BJ?
Anybody who sees him in public just points and laughs at him.
It is all he deserves.

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

He has provided the opportunity to demonstrate that there are limitations to the tools available to a minority government to bypass parliament.
Democracy is the winner here.
Hopefully, longer term the two party duopoly is weakened by his extremism and we can have electoral reform.
Not his intended consequences, but one he has directly catalysed and the 2nd he may contribute to, but only time will tell.

Is it really with the courts getting involved in politics?

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Do you think we could have a national 'Point and laugh' campaign against BJ?
Anybody who sees him in public just points and laughs at him.
It is all he deserves.

You should be able to organise one in Cake Stop.

shirley_basso

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

Here's the Beeb article on his track record in politics overall, including positives and negatives - as likely as any source to be reasonably even handed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48663963

Generally atrocious then.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

Here's the Beeb article on his track record in politics overall, including positives and negatives - as likely as any source to be reasonably even handed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48663963

Generally atrocious then.

I'm just giving you the info for you to make your own mind up, although tbh your post above indicated it was a confirmation bias exercise.

shirley_basso

Well I did read the article and basically he stepped into a safe seat, generally behaved reprehensibly, didn't really do much as mayor that wasn't already happening before except allocate a load of police officers from nationally to London.

As a non biased article it could easily have raised some key highlights but even they were caveated.

ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

He has provided the opportunity to demonstrate that there are limitations to the tools available to a minority government to bypass parliament.
Democracy is the winner here.
Hopefully, longer term the two party duopoly is weakened by his extremism and we can have electoral reform.
Not his intended consequences, but one he has directly catalysed and the 2nd he may contribute to, but only time will tell.

Is it really with the courts getting involved in politics?

There is a symmetry of ironies or is it an ironic symmetry.
Brexiteers voted in their words for Parliament to retake control. Remainers went to court to uphold Parliament's supremacy and ended up ceding authority.

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

He has provided the opportunity to demonstrate that there are limitations to the tools available to a minority government to bypass parliament.
Democracy is the winner here.
Hopefully, longer term the two party duopoly is weakened by his extremism and we can have electoral reform.
Not his intended consequences, but one he has directly catalysed and the 2nd he may contribute to, but only time will tell.

Is it really with the courts getting involved in politics?

There is a symmetry of ironies or is it an ironic symmetry.
Brexiteers voted in their words for Parliament to retake control. Remainers went to court to uphold Parliament's supremacy and ended up ceding authority.

The courts (any courts) don't care about politics. They look objectively at the law.
The courts cannot change laws or influence them, only judge the actions of others against those laws. The governments behaviour was found to be unlawful. That is not playing politics or undemocratic, it is measuring the actions of others and upholding the law which is their job.

This is all misdirection.

Note that legal precedents are not setting laws, they are landmark rulings that define how an action is interpreted in context of the law.

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Can someone just point out something good BJ has done jut so I can feel balanced in my hatred for the man

He has provided the opportunity to demonstrate that there are limitations to the tools available to a minority government to bypass parliament.
Democracy is the winner here.
Hopefully, longer term the two party duopoly is weakened by his extremism and we can have electoral reform.
Not his intended consequences, but one he has directly catalysed and the 2nd he may contribute to, but only time will tell.

Is it really with the courts getting involved in politics?

There is a symmetry of ironies or is it an ironic symmetry.
Brexiteers voted in their words for Parliament to retake control. Remainers went to court to uphold Parliament's supremacy and ended up ceding authority.

The courts (any courts) don't care about politics. They look objectively at the law.
The courts cannot change laws or influence them, only judge the actions of others against those laws. The governments behaviour was found to be unlawful. That is not playing politics or undemocratic, it is measuring the actions of others and upholding the law which is their job.

This is all misdirection.

Note that legal precedents are not setting laws, they are landmark rulings that define how an action is interpreted in context of the law.

Am not trying to misdirect anyone. When I say getting involved in politics, I don't mean picking any particular side.
If as the SC has ruled, in its own favour, that it is the last arbiter in the scope of Parliamentary Privilege and Parliament itself, to whom does the SC answer? In which case, how is democracy the winner?

PS please see the Brexit thread for the same discussion.

Edit Should read "and not Parliament itself"

morstar

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

surrey_commuter

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

I really struggle with why anybody has a problem with this. It does not take a huge imagination to see JC trying a similar stunt

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

So now Johnson is promising massive spending projects and tax cuts. Magic money tree anyone?

I am intrigued as to what pile of sh1te would see those articles as “premium”

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

I remind you that I voted Remain, but I understand the importance of democracy in our system of government.
Or are you saying that the end justifies the means?

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

I remind you that I voted Remain, but I understand the importance of democracy in our system of government.
Or are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Why the reminder?

I feel you are just stirring the pot so will leave you to it

ballysmate

Het up or stirring the pot? :?

briantrumpet

Surrey Commuter wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

So now Johnson is promising massive spending projects and tax cuts. Magic money tree anyone?

I am intrigued as to what pile of sh1te would see those articles as “premium”

I am genuinely sad to see where the Telegraph has gone. I only get to read it as my mum subscribes to the paper version (mostly for the crosswords etc.), but it's a hateful rag for the most part these days. If you read the comments under Michael Deacon's parliamentary sketches, you'd get a good idea of the mindset of the subscribing readership. Jeez. Makes the Daily Mail look like a socialist bastion.