You are here: Home | Forum | Updated: Boris resigns as party leader
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
I've said many times polls can be wrong and have been wrong in the past - sure GB News poll is off from normal polling but you are conveniently missing the point that Labour are unelectable to many many people, despite the issues with the Tory party, millions will never vote for them and I am in that camp. Keir Starmer has zero charisma and plus of the issues of propping up a leader with Anti-Semitic rhetoric that was rife when Corbyn was leader.
I know Labour are unelectable to many but so are the Tories. These people are not the ones who decide elections. The ones that matter are the ones whose vote changes between elections.
The GB News poll is probably attracting an audience of people who'll never vote Labour anyway, it'll be like going onto the Socialist Worker Twitter feed and asking them if they'll vote for Johnson.
---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Completely irrelevant, it makes no difference who made the rules.
Unless of course you are now saying its fine to break any law or rule, as long as you are not the person who made that law/rule.
It does make a difference.
We expect politicians to abide by the laws they make, especially when they're asking us to make sacrifices. If they don't have to abide by the laws they make it'll change the kinds of laws they pass.
Private Eye has reported that The Government offered a change in the law for the Queen so that - for one day - the restrictions would be lifted in order that she didn't attend Prince Philip's funeral alone. She declined because she didn't think it was fair when others in the country had to grieve in the same way. "She wanted to set an example rather than be an exception to the rules". That's what a leader should do. The contrast with Johnson is huge.
Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.
Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.
Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.
---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------
Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.
I think you are a bit of a purist, Chris! I'm sure that Bercow would have made maximum use of precedents to do something dubious!
I think you are a bit of a purist, Chris! I'm sure that Bercow would have made maximum use of precedents to do something dubious!
Please provide an example to back up your assertion…
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Private Eye has reported that The Government offered a change in the law for the Queen so that - for one day - the restrictions would be lifted in order that she didn't attend Prince Philip's funeral alone. She declined because she didn't think it was fair when others in the country had to grieve in the same way. "She wanted to set an example rather than be an exception to the rules". That's what a leader should do. The contrast with Johnson is huge.
And this is the type of Monarch she has chosen to be. The Queen is above the law anyway in this country, she can do anything she pleases and she would not be prosecuted because they are her courts, that said she always remains neutral when it comes to laws and rules, she has a lot of power she has mostly never used.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,928
Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
The monarch isn’t above the law - we had a civil war over that question. Ours is a constitutional monarchy, which in practice is a delicate and arcane interweaving of parliament and crown. MPs swear allegiance to the Queen, but when she comes to formally open each parliamentary session, her representative (Black Rod) has the door slammed in his face.
It is of course absolutely inconceivable that she would do anything that would risk her ending up in court.
He used something from Erskine May, which is the Parliamentary rule book - how is this "dubious"?
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
He used something from Erskine May, which is the Parliamentary rule book - how is this "dubious"?
Nobody expected Bercow to use this ancient precedent. If could go back to the year dot for a precedent, he would. If he couldn’t find one, he’d make one of his own.
Nobody expected Bercow to use this ancient precedent. If could go back to the year dot for a precedent, he would. If he couldn’t find one, he’d make one of his own.
Now you’re just projecting…
You can’t find an example where he used precedent to do something actually dubious, so now you’re reduced to stating that he would have if he had to… :rosey:
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
The monarch isn’t above the law - we had a civil war over that question. Ours is a constitutional monarchy, which in practice is a delicate and arcane interweaving of parliament and crown. MPs swear allegiance to the Queen, but when she comes to formally open each parliamentary session, her representative (Black Rod) has the door slammed in his face.
It is of course absolutely inconceivable that she would do anything that would risk her ending up in court.
Yes she is above the law, for the simple reason, she is immune to prosecution, she cannot be tried in any courts because they’re her courts, for all Judicial appointments require swearing an oath to the crown.
Quote:
What if the Queen committed a crime?
Should Queen Elizabeth ever commit a crime, the term 'sovereign immunity' will really come to the fore. Sovereign immunity means that as head of the state Queen Elizabeth 'cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution'.
As well as this, the Queen also benefits from diplomatic immunity, meaning she can commit a crime just about anywhere in the world and get away with it!
The sovereign immunity that the Queen benefits from even goes so far as to ensure that she cannot be subject to any civil proceedings, so she can't be sued.
As well as this she cannot be interviewed by the police and would never have to testify in court should that be her wish.
The Queen's word in the United Kingdom is law. She could conceivably walk into any shop in the whole of Britain and loot the place should she wish. Simply put, the Queen is above all authority and must surely be one of the most powerful people on earth for that fact alone.
Yeah, yeah. I hope you are satisfied with that response.
Your reading ability is only matched by your researching…
I’ll put it plainer - you can’t find an example of where he used precedent dubiously, so you imagined he would have.
Fictional imaginings are not evidence - thank you for attending my TED Talk.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,928
Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Yes she is above the law, for the simple reason, she is immune to prosecution, she cannot be tried in any courts because they’re her courts, for all Judicial appointments require swearing an oath to the crown.
All correct, but for the fact that her very position only exists with the ongoing agreement of parliament. While she can’t be tried in any court for a crime committed under any law, parliament can pass an Act that censures the monarch in any way it chooses. Parliament is sovereign because the powers of the crown are permanently delegated to it and the sovereign can no longer refuse to sign off its legislation; the Queen gives royal assent, not consent, to each new Act.
Services: Flextel SIP : Sky Mobile : Sky Q TV : VM BB (1000 Mbps) : Aquiss FTTP (330 Mbps)
Posts: 27,719
Re: All those No.10 lockdown parties
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It does make a difference.
Nope, none at all. Thats just hype, nothing more.
You breaking a rule is just the same as anyone else, including whoever 'made' it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
We expect politicians to abide by the laws they make.
Ummm, no ... we expect everyone to abide by them.
That doesnt mean of course that everyone does, nor did everyone.
Their maybe a few saints about, but I'm quite sure a large number of people have broken them at some point.
Join CF
You are here: 
Baby, I was born this way.
