UK Politics Thread

[Montmorency]

Gordon Brown Endorses Corbyn, and something about austerity

So, my impression is that Corbyn has been on a roll in the past half-year.

[Fragony]

Should Corbyn be happy with Brown endorsing him, is that a dagger I see. If labour is anything even remotily as traiterous internally as our Dutch counterpart anything can be a Judas' kiss. Brittish politics is always fun to watch, as an outsider you simply cannot understand what's going on. To the naked eye, Corbyn is a force of nature who simply has no use for the likes of Gordon Brown who has all 50 shades of grey and none of them are interresting

[Beskar]

Jeremy Corbyn got the Séan MacBride Peace Prize.
http://www.ipb.org/events/macbride-p...jeremy-corbyn/

[rory_20_uk]

Corbyn is to be fair to the man true to what he believes. He has had the good fortune that in his his entire life his principles have never really been tested - the closest was in the disastrous 1970s.

Gordon Brown was PM over 7 years ago - many if not most of Corbyn's supporters were in their early teenage years at that point and probably had little interest in politics. Such "minor" points as him selling UK's gold when almost at a historically low level whilst chancellor and his boasts to break the boom and bust cycle appear to be forgotten.

So he is another "fantastic" Labour ex-PM (who was mostly against the eeeevil Tony Blair) anointing the shadow leader.

Rather than focusing on the extremely difficult / complex global macroeconomics and redistribution from the wealthy western countries to the poorer ones which looks like a trend that is going to be extremely difficult to arrest, or the distorted global system of tax avoidance and how to solve it which would be extremely difficult to solve he avoids the "how" and just focuses on "aspirations". After all, the way to his solutions are extremely difficult if not impossible.

The good, well paid jobs appear to only be of importance to UK workers - it is almost as if his Socialism has a strong National flavour... National Socialism.

[Fragony]

If you want to be really funny you could call him a facist, keeping existing sctructures intact while catering lower-classes third way. It wouldn't be really fair but not that off, a Starwars themed I am your father moment would be priceless

No, t's not true it's not possible

In your heart you know it to be true

NOOOOO

Then again, it's a little bit true

[Beskar]

Not enough Corporate Cronyism with Corbyn's policies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The equivalent of Marbury vs Madison for the UK. Only took you guys 220 years to catch up.

I said it was clearly undemocratic and you guys said it wasnt. I said Parliament thinks it was undemocratic and you guys said it was the opposite. Now the court unanimously says it was undemocratic and you are saying the entire court must be wrong.

You just want things to happen your way, like a screaming toddler.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The equivalent of Marbury vs Madison for the UK. Only took you guys 220 years to catch up.

I said it was clearly undemocratic and you guys said it wasnt. I said Parliament thinks it was undemocratic and you guys said it was the opposite. Now the court unanimously says it was undemocratic and you are saying the entire court must be wrong.

You just want things to happen your way, like a screaming toddler.

I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the judgement - regardless of what you thought of the prorogation.

The UK Constitution functions on the basis of a complex interaction of contradictory legal fictions. It's like a house of cards and today's Supreme Court Judgment has brought it that much closer to collapse. Brexit is now probably the most dangerous political crisis since Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson.

[Pannonian]

I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the judgement - regardless of what you thought of the prorogation.

The UK Constitution functions on the basis of a complex interaction of contradictory legal fictions. It's like a house of cards and today's Supreme Court Judgment has brought it that much closer to collapse. Brexit is now probably the most dangerous political crisis since Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson.

Magna Carta established the principle that the executive does not have the right to set aside Parliament which is the representative of the kingdom. Every attempt to repeat John's assumption of executive supremacy has been recognised as being against the fibre of the English system. The constitutional monarchy came into being because the last monarch to presume absolute power was run out of town and a suitably obedient replacement invited. The executive only has power because they command the confidence of Parliament. If they do not, they do not have the right to set Parliament aside for the sake of their convenience.

That's the constitutional principle side of things. The other part of the court judgment is that the PM is a lying so and so.

[rory_20_uk]

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

[Pannonian]

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

Still of the opinion that exiting the EU will solve all this?

[Montmorency]

Nice Twitter



"Brekekekekexit" is an especially delightful pun because Brexit is kek, if you didn't catch that.

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

Just a general note that this is a naive and powerless sort of dismissal. I also note that it's inconsistent with the belief (which you seem to adopt) that a socialist can plausibly amass enough power to enact fundamental changes to British society. Doesn't it become a mere excuse for self-satisfaction when things continue not to go well? It is more decent and productive to be appalled.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Magna Carta established the principle that the executive does not have the right to set aside Parliament which is the representative of the kingdom. Every attempt to repeat John's assumption of executive supremacy has been recognised as being against the fibre of the English system. The constitutional monarchy came into being because the last monarch to presume absolute power was run out of town and a suitably obedient replacement invited. The executive only has power because they command the confidence of Parliament. If they do not, they do not have the right to set Parliament aside for the sake of their convenience.

That's the constitutional principle side of things. The other part of the court judgment is that the PM is a lying so and so.

No, Magna Carta established the principle that the monarch is not above the Law - i.e. the Law is not something the monarch can change at will. Instead, the Law is either decided by consensus (either by a conclave of the magnates or in a trial by jury) or by a learned Judge.

Today, the Supreme Court, a collections of our most learned Judges, decided that the monarch must act according to the advice of their ministers and that if said advice is faulty then the actions taken by the monarch are null and void.

Previously this was not a legal precedent but merely a convention.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Now, watch as Parliament goes back to squabbling for a week before voting for a recess so that everyone but Labour can hold their annual political conference.

Showed that Toff Boris though, right?

[Pannonian]

No, Magna Carta established the principle that the monarch is not above the Law - i.e. the Law is not something the monarch can change at will. Instead, the Law is either decided by consensus (either by a conclave of the magnates or in a trial by jury) or by a learned Judge.

Today, the Supreme Court, a collections of our most learned Judges, decided that the monarch must act according to the advice of their ministers and that if said advice is faulty then the actions taken by the monarch are null and void.

Previously this was not a legal precedent but merely a convention.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Now, watch as Parliament goes back to squabbling for a week before voting for a recess so that everyone but Labour can hold their annual political conference.

Showed that Toff Boris though, right?

Hang on. Can you show me where this is the case? On my previous browse of the ruling, the FT quote seemed an accurate enough summary to me, but then you raise this argument which I've not seen elsewhere. I've gone back to the source document, and I can't find anything of the sort, and certainly not in balance.

[Montmorency]

When I watch Yes Prime Minister from c. 50 years ago and see them playing the same games I am not sure why I should either have optimism or be appalled that things have continued in the same vein. 20 years ago I might have been appalled since it was new to me but now it no longer is. The entire design of the system is there to resist any changes and to return mainly the same collection of MPs to their safe seats.

If you think the distribution of power in society never changes (bar revolution), you forget your history or "how the world works." Yes Minister has the downside of presenting an (entertaining) fairy tale of government, a conservative one. At its best it is a good satire, but it should not be taken as a more complete or adroit depiction of modern government than Season 4 of Blackadder is of trench warfare.

An insufficient but arguably necessary condition for reform (whatever that means in context!) is when enough people make demands on the state - there is movement. Almost every service, every right and privilege, every vesting of vested interests has come about when merchants, peasants, workers, and so on have pressured the state into growing to adopt new responsibilities, underwritten by their loyalty, their conscription, their taxation. With contract law as with social welfare.

We are entering a time of great ferment and instability. Hearken or others will speak for you whom you might not wish to do the speaking.

She's doing pretty good speaking though.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Taking your fear at face value, the substance appears to be that the court intervening between the Monarch and a tyrannical act by the executive is bad because it can set precedent for a hypothetical future Parliament to petition the courts against the Monarch over refusing to condone a tyrannical Act by Parliament. Do I have it right?

If that's the fear, it smells like the intensification of internal contradictions.