UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

So. After the UK's Supreme Court ruling that BJ lied to the queen re proroguing Parliament and that suspending Parliament was illegal and against the unwritten Constitution, the pound surged again, when it had been falling falling falling against the US dollar. But it fell again though, due to BREXIT uncertainty. In the meantime US hedge funds feasted mightily upon the corpse of Thomas Cook's demise (whether or not it was a poorly run company is irrelevant to the hedger-hyena gobble), only the first of the ravening Wall Street hyena pack upon UK's institutions, public and private. Certain reminders of the merry dismemberment and swallage whole of the former Soviet public sectors by those come to be known as the Oligarchs (the sorts known in other states as 'mafia,' 'corporations' and etc.).

The Supreme Court made no finding that Johnson lied.

Despite all the predicted economic horrors, employment and wages have grown quite strongly since the Brexit vote.

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Maybe the suppposed fix to the Benn Bill?

What is this fix to the Benn bill about?

6 hours ago, Jeor said:

I'm glad the courts were able to frustrate Johnson's evil schemes, but I hope it doesn't become an American-style system where courts become the regular place of last political resort.

This particularly case might be unusual but Governments have been frequently taken to court and there have been some high profile losses over the years.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I just about choked on my drink. An unbelievably awful decision, and one that the judiciary would never dare make in any other circumstances. Politically, it renders the entire constitutional framework fluid in a way not seen since 1910 - and that is not a good thing.

Worst case scenario is that this gets full seventeenth century, with multiple competing loci of power. And that way lies... something very, very dark.

From now on, I think that governments will, as in the US, pack the Supreme Court with judges who are on their side.

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

While there might be some question marks over the role of the SC in politics now, the murkiness was Johnson trying to hack the system and stop Parliament from doing its job. I for one am glad that our system does seem to work , at least better than I thought it did. 

So surely there would have to be a VONC now?

The Commons does not want Corbyn in power, and it does not want a general election that could deliver a pro-Brexit majority.

[Gaston de Foix]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

From now on, I think that governments will, as in the US, pack the Supreme Court with judges who are on their side.

The government doesn't get to appoint the higher judiciary anymore. 

https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/

[Gaston de Foix]

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Nope. The PM advises Liz, never the other way around. At most, she'd be allowed an "is that wise, sir?" but that's it.

The PM advises the Queen in the exercise of prerogative powers.  But the Queen is entitled to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. But despite the portrayals in the Crown, Liz is not really one step ahead of everyone else. 

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The government doesn't get to appoint the higher judiciary anymore. 

https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/

That will change, as judges increasingly become political players.  

[Werthead]

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Supreme Court made no finding that Johnson lied.

The Supreme Court found that Johnson's proroguement was illegal when he said it was legal, ergo he lied. They didn't find that he lied to the Queen, which is something they apparently couldn't unanimity on from the court, but he clearly misled Parliament when he made that choice.

Quote

Despite all the predicted economic horrors, employment and wages have grown quite strongly since the Brexit vote.

Britain's employment situation remains the most shambolic it has for generations, with far fewer people in full-time work and more people barely surviving in zero-hours and gig economy jobs with the cost of living versus income being at its most unfavourable ratio in decades. Wage growth has also been desultory at best. The government's massaging of the employment figures, such as it's dubious practice of treating people who've been removed from claiming Universal Credit for spurious sanctions as if they're in work, would be a scandal if everyone wasn't distracted by Brexit.

Brexit has also not taken place yet, so the predicted economic issues caused by the imposition of border controls and a hard border in Ireland have not yet come to fruition.

Quote

The Commons does not want Corbyn in power, and it does not want a general election that could deliver a pro-Brexit majority.

There seems to be something of an acceptance that one way forwards would be a government of national unity, consisting of the SNP, Labour, LibDems, Greens and Independent Conservatives. Such a government would not be willing to follow Corbyn, but Harriet Harman appears to be acceptable to the Conservatives and LibDems, and she is both Labour and the elder stateswoman of the House. I also suspect that Ken Clarke would be acceptable to many Labour supporters, but might be harder to swallow for Corbyn.

Such a government would have to trade horses a lot, so there'd be no immediate Article 50 revocation (as wanted by the LibDems), nor the immediate nationalisation of the railways (as wanted by Labour). Instead there'd likely be a moratorium on domestic policy and an agreement to hold Ref3 as soon as possible, which would probably require a further extension of Article 50 to March to allow a referendum to take place in February.

Arranging such an alliance is hugely problematic, so it may not happen. However, the numbers are now there for it in the HoC unless Boris does some sharp moving, perhaps offering the Tories he kicked out some pretty hefty sweetners to get them back in the fold ASAP.

The problem is that the alternatives are not particularly appealing for anyone: a highly unpredictable general election which could deliver anything from a surprise Corbyn majority to a Johnson-Farage double act winning a populist election engineered by Dominic Cummings to another completely gridlocked Parliament. I can't see the opposition parties tabling a VONC unless Johnson can be shamed into resigning. If that happens, the remaining Tory leadership candidates are such a bunch of complete no-hopers, that a Conservative majority becomes improbable and Corbyn may be more tempted to roll the dice.

Calling an election now runs the risk of Johnson winning and then crashing the UK out of the EU without a deal, with the attendant chaos that would bring.

 

[Paxter]

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Despite all the predicted economic horrors, employment and wages have grown quite strongly since the Brexit vote.

While I take your overall point that some of the more extreme Remain claims were proved to be hysteric, I think the economic situation since Brexit is nuanced and not easy to pin down. Recent research that takes into account the probable counterfactual indicates that UK economic activity has slowed relative to its long-run trend since the vote. And that's putting aside the fact that most of the economic horrors you are referring to were based on the (pending) actual exit from the EU/single market rather than merely voting to exit.

@williamjm: I totally agree. The courts should be the arbiter in relation to constitutional and administrative matters. That is one of the central starting points around the separation of powers. 

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

The Supreme Court found that Johnson's proroguement was illegal when he said it was legal, ergo he lied. 

 

Johnson lied.

However, the prorogation being illegal even though he said it was legal would only make him a liar if he himself believed it was illegal. If he thought it was legal he would just be wrong but not a liar. Obviously.

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Supreme Court found that Johnson's proroguement was illegal when he said it was legal, ergo he lied. They didn't find that he lied to the Queen, which is something they apparently couldn't unanimity on from the court, but he clearly misled Parliament when he made that choice.

Britain's employment situation remains the most shambolic it has for generations, with far fewer people in full-time work and more people barely surviving in zero-hours and gig economy jobs with the cost of living versus income being at its most unfavourable ratio in decades. Wage growth has also been desultory at best. The government's massaging of the employment figures, such as it's dubious practice of treating people who've been removed from claiming Universal Credit for spurious sanctions as if they're in work, would be a scandal if everyone wasn't distracted by Brexit.

Brexit has also not taken place yet, so the predicted economic issues caused by the imposition of border controls and a hard border in Ireland have not yet come to fruition.

There seems to be something of an acceptance that one way forwards would be a government of national unity, consisting of the SNP, Labour, LibDems, Greens and Independent Conservatives. Such a government would not be willing to follow Corbyn, but Harriet Harman appears to be acceptable to the Conservatives and LibDems, and she is both Labour and the elder stateswoman of the House. I also suspect that Ken Clarke would be acceptable to many Labour supporters, but might be harder to swallow for Corbyn.

Such a government would have to trade horses a lot, so there'd be no immediate Article 50 revocation (as wanted by the LibDems), nor the immediate nationalisation of the railways (as wanted by Labour). Instead there'd likely be a moratorium on domestic policy and an agreement to hold Ref3 as soon as possible, which would probably require a further extension of Article 50 to March to allow a referendum to take place in February.

Arranging such an alliance is hugely problematic, so it may not happen. However, the numbers are now there for it in the HoC unless Boris does some sharp moving, perhaps offering the Tories he kicked out some pretty hefty sweetners to get them back in the fold ASAP.

The problem is that the alternatives are not particularly appealing for anyone: a highly unpredictable general election which could deliver anything from a surprise Corbyn majority to a Johnson-Farage double act winning a populist election engineered by Dominic Cummings to another completely gridlocked Parliament. I can't see the opposition parties tabling a VONC unless Johnson can be shamed into resigning. If that happens, the remaining Tory leadership candidates are such a bunch of complete no-hopers, that a Conservative majority becomes improbable and Corbyn may be more tempted to roll the dice.

Calling an election now runs the risk of Johnson winning and then crashing the UK out of the EU without a deal, with the attendant chaos that would bring.

 

You've got some strange views about unemployment (thinking it's really 20% or so).  You don't have to believe the government.  But you can believe the International Labour Organisation, who put it at about 4%.

[Ser Hedge]

9 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Oliver Dowden is the current Minister for the Cabinet Office, which makes him de facto deputy prime minister - he takes over if BJ is incapacitated

That's it! At 23:59 the day before B-Day, Dominic C takes a cosh to the back of BoJo's head after having locked up Dowden in the attic and Raab in the men's respectively. There's your no deal Brexit -and Bo Jo didn't break the law (maybe just his skull, but I'm sure he'll be fine, it's got to be quite thick). Simples. The pro"rogue"ation was just a ruse.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

You've got some strange views about unemployment (thinking it's really 20% or so).  You don't have to believe the government.  But you can believe the International Labour Organisation, who put it at about 4%.

Where did I say it was 20%?

[Derfel Cadarn]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

You've got some strange views about unemployment (thinking it's really 20% or so).  You don't have to believe the government.  But you can believe the International Labour Organisation, who put it at about 4%.

The problem is less unemployment than it is underemployment.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Where did I say it was 20%?

 I apologise if I have misremembered,  but I thought you quoted that number from a writer for Business Insider.

The proportion of jobs that are full-time (75%) has not changed much in 30 years.  The proportion of the working age population in work (76%) is the highest since 1971. The proportion of jobs that are temporary has fallen from 7% to 5% since 2016.  Wages are rising at twice the rate of inflation.  That seems like a pretty tight labour market to me.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

The Supreme Court found that Johnson's proroguement was illegal when he said it was legal, ergo he lied.

As Chaircat Meow says, that's not a lie, that's just being wrong - something Johnson has plenty of experience with. The SC found that he had 'no reason, let alone a good reason' for prorogation, which stops short of calling him a liar, if only just.

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

There seems to be something of an acceptance that one way forwards would be a government of national unity, consisting of the SNP, Labour, LibDems, Greens and Independent Conservatives.

Who is this acceptance coming from? I haven't seen anything substantial.

 

[Which Tyler]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

Who is this acceptance coming from? I haven't seen anything substantial.

Errr... it's been everywhere for several weeks.

NB: It's a possible way forwards; not a cast-iron certain-to-succeed method.

[Heartofice]

Can we not find another term for 'Government of National Unity'.. it seems like the most inappropriate way of describing it I could think of.

[mormont]

51 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Errr... it's been everywhere for several weeks.

NB: It's a possible way forwards; not a cast-iron certain-to-succeed method.

Yes, it's an idea that has been around for several weeks. I repeat the question: where is this 'acceptance' of the idea that Wert refers to? AFAIK, nothing has changed recently: Labour insist that such a hypothetical government must be headed by Jeremy Corbyn, the Lib Dems categorically reject that, nobody has made any substantial moves towards doing it, and so I don't see this 'acceptance'. 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Yes, it's an idea that has been around for several weeks. I repeat the question: where is this 'acceptance' of the idea that Wert refers to? AFAIK, nothing has changed recently: Labour insist that such a hypothetical government must be headed by Jeremy Corbyn, the Lib Dems categorically reject that, nobody has made any substantial moves towards doing it, and so I don't see this 'acceptance'. 

You still seem to be talking about "acceptance" of viability; not acceptance that it's an option.

Whether you think it's viable or not, it absolutely is "one way forwards", and that much is accepted by literally everybody (well, figuratively everybody, as you seem to think the option has already been removed).

 

We don't know the viability as the horse trading is going on behind closed doors. We do know that politicians always make their positions sound a lot more definitive than they actually are.

Most realistic for the sniff test, would be that should a VONC pass; Corbyn would see if he had the numbers, and if he didn't, then he'd allow some other candidate to have a go. But that's just the sniff test. No-one can possibly have made any concrete moves towards what happens after a VONC as that would need a VONC to be tabled first.