Stop voting for fucking Tories

[SaintK]

Will Raab be the next one on the "to be shuffled out" list?

Raab, the foreign secretary, has faced repeated demands to resign for remaining until Monday on a family holiday in Crete while the Afghan government collapsed, and delegating tasks to junior ministers.
The Sunday Times reported that Raab had been told on the Friday that he should return to the UK, but that he persuaded Boris Johnson he could stay in Crete for two more days. According to the report, officials felt that Raab “nobbled” the prime minister into agreeing.

Johnson on holiday
Raab on holiday
Lord Ahmed the junior FO minister responsible for Afghanistan on holiday
One of the senior FO mandarins on holiday
Glad trhe were all taking it so seriously

[Insane_Homer]

[Insane_Homer]

[Calculon]

Is this meant to be a bad thing?

[Insane_Homer]

Is this meant to be a bad thing?

Is breaking election pledges a good this?

This is what was said in their 2019 manifesto...

We will keep the triple lock, the winter fuel payment, the older person’s bus pass and other pensioner benefits, ensuring that older people have the security and dignity they deserve. We recognise the value of free TV licences for over-75s and believe they should be funded by the BBC

[Calculon]

If the pledge is bad policy and/if circumstances change, then yes

[Insane_Homer]

If it got them votes and they then renege on them, that should trigger by-elections in every one of their seats.

[ASMO]

If it got them votes and they then renege on them, that should trigger by-elections in every one of their seats.

Unfortunately manifesto promises are not legally binding, and the pensioners they fucked over will have forgotten by the time the next election that they were fucked over, the Tories will promise more shit and get their vote again, groundhog day.

[Insane_Homer]

Botham Nov 2020: I “will be at Westminster more often when we get back to normal, especially when they are debating something I know about – like sport or the countryside. Not much point if it’s a trade deal with Japan”

Botham Aug 2021: trade envoy!

[Insane_Homer]

You lazy, retired, old fuckers can give up a round or 2 golf and muck in to fix Brexit.

[Insane_Homer]

[Insane_Homer]

[sturginho]

none of it sticks though

[Plim]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

[SaintK]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

Bit like the entitled cunt Johnson and his cabinet then?

[I like neeps]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

Bit like the entitled cunt Johnson and his cabinet then?

He's not even left wing - he's advised both labour and the Tories and set up his own centrist political party

[Plim]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

Bit like the entitled cunt Johnson and his cabinet then?

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

[Rinkals]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

Because Johnson is unfailingly honest and would never use his position to benefit himself?

Or do you believe that politicians have the right to filch from the public purse?

Or only Conservative Party politicians?

Personally, I think we probably owe a debt of gratitude to 'Gobby barristers' for pointing out corruption where they see it and informing both the public and the authorities. Not that anything will be done about it, of course. However, forcing them to keep repeatedly showing their brass neck may eventually cause the penny to drop.

[Rinkals]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

Bit like the entitled cunt Johnson and his cabinet then?

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

Which, of course, is reason enough not to hold him to any sort of standards.

"All politicians do it, so it's perfectly okay".

[Plim]

Bit like the entitled cunt Johnson and his cabinet then?

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

Which, of course, is reason enough not to hold him to any sort of standards.

"All politicians do it, so it's perfectly okay".

Who said that? Of course the cabinet is a shower. I was just pointing out that Jolyon Maugham is a bit of a joke. I do approve of his wildlife control policy though.

Generally, I distrust all politicians, at whatever level.

[SaintK]

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

Which, of course, is reason enough not to hold him to any sort of standards.

"All politicians do it, so it's perfectly okay".

Who said that? Of course the cabinet is a shower. I was just pointing out that Jolyon Maugham is a bit of a joke. I do approve of his wildlife control policy though.

Generally, I distrust all politicians, at whatever level.

Quite!

[JM2K6]

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

Which, of course, is reason enough not to hold him to any sort of standards.

"All politicians do it, so it's perfectly okay".

Who said that? Of course the cabinet is a shower. I was just pointing out that Jolyon Maugham is a bit of a joke. I do approve of his wildlife control policy though.

Generally, I distrust all politicians, at whatever level.

Why's he a joke? Because he's reasonably successful at holding the government to account? Or is the idea of the rule of law the funny part of this?

[Rinkals]

Bit like all politicians, to be fair.

Which, of course, is reason enough not to hold him to any sort of standards.

"All politicians do it, so it's perfectly okay".

Who said that? Of course the cabinet is a shower. I was just pointing out that Jolyon Maugham is a bit of a joke. I do approve of his wildlife control policy though.

Generally, I distrust all politicians, at whatever level.

"Bit like all politicians, to be fair."

[Plim]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing. Including for bad service.

[JM2K6]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing.

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.

Including for bad service.

ah yes, an email a day late

[Plim]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing.

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.

Including for bad service.

ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

[JM2K6]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing.

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.

Including for bad service.

ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

I'm not saying they didn't fuck that up, but it wasn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it's also an isolated event.

The simple truth is that without their efforts, the Govt would be getting off scot free. You can be as suspicious as you like, but that doesn't make him or his project a joke - it's pretty important that someone holds the Govt to account, particularly in matters of law. Otherwise we're all even more fucked.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

As someone who's supported such crowd funding efforts I don't recall putting the money in thinking this still somewhat amateur effort is ensured to be run to a high professional standard utterly devoid of any mistakes with all lines of thinking correctly established before taking any action.

[Plim]

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.




ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

I'm not saying they didn't fuck that up, but it wasn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it's also an isolated event.

The simple truth is that without their efforts, the Govt would be getting off scot free. You can be as suspicious as you like, but that doesn't make him or his project a joke - it's pretty important that someone holds the Govt to account, particularly in matters of law. Otherwise we're all even more fucked.

That might be true for some cases but the line between political decisions and matters of law is becoming very blurry. Maugham’s Brexit litigation was very doubtful, in my view, as being anything other than an attempt to achieve a purely political end through the courts. Same with Gina Miller.

I forget which of the GLP’s cases it was (procurement?), but the fact that several MPs jumped on the bandwagon only to be ruled as having no standing as claimants says it all really.

[MoreOrLess]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing.

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.

Including for bad service.

ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

Are you referring to the government or the GLP there? Or both?

I suppose the difference is that for government the crowd funding isn't optional. Which puts even more emphasis on them getting it right

[Insane_Homer]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

and being very good at it

[Plim]

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.




ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

Are you referring to the government or the GLP there? Or both?

I suppose the difference is that for government the crowd funding isn't optional. Which puts even more emphasis on them getting it right

Governments (and local councils) that waste taxpayers’ money should be caned. That’s what the NAO and the PAC, among others, are for. But political waste is a regrettable consequence of public funding for the purposes of governing.

The GLP is just putting out the begging bowl.

[JM2K6]

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

I'm not saying they didn't fuck that up, but it wasn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it's also an isolated event.

The simple truth is that without their efforts, the Govt would be getting off scot free. You can be as suspicious as you like, but that doesn't make him or his project a joke - it's pretty important that someone holds the Govt to account, particularly in matters of law. Otherwise we're all even more fucked.

That might be true for some cases but the line between political decisions and matters of law is becoming very blurry. Maugham’s Brexit litigation was very doubtful, in my view, as being anything other than an attempt to achieve a purely political end through the courts. Same with Gina Miller.

I forget which of the GLP’s cases it was (procurement?), but the fact that several MPs jumped on the bandwagon only to be ruled as having no standing as claimants says it all really.

Don't think we'll ever agree that Miller's case was doubtful. Not least because a) it won, and b) the primacy of Parliament is a core part of our political system, and this was the only way to prevent the Government from running roughshod over it.

I get that you feel uncomfortable with the idea that an anti-Brexit campaigner won a court case to prevent a pro-hard-Brexit Government from breaking the law, with the explicit purpose of preventing that Government from getting the Brexit it was clearly aiming for, but I think it's far more important that we are uncomfortable with what the Government has attempted to do (and continues to attempt to do). We are in a very strange situation and frankly the fact that we're down to relying on "activists" like these guys is not a slur against them, but a sign of the shit state of our current attempt at democracy. Someone needs to be able to push back.

[JM2K6]

I can't see how criticising the GLP for their crowdfunding, given how open they are with their finances, is at all useful. Preventing everyone except the richest people and companies from being able to hold the Government to account is a desparately poor way for things to work.

[MoreOrLess]

Governments (and local councils) that waste taxpayers’ money should be caned. That’s what the NAO and the PAC, among others, are for. But political waste is a regrettable consequence of public funding for the purposes of governing.

The GLP is just putting out the begging bowl.

What you are describing is precisely what the Judicial Review process is for.

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.

This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-ju ... al-review/

The majority of cases brought by the GLP have demonstrated that the correct process has not been followed. The government can't fund these reviews and it's unfair to ask 1 person to fund ther review on everyone else's behalf, so if people want to chip in a tenner to help keep calling that out.....what's the problem?

[MoreOrLess]

“ Why's he a joke?”

Because his crowd-funded legal actions keep failing.

I know you know it's not just about the wins - which they do get, as it happens. Michael Gove being found to have broken the law. The PPE procurement case. Parliament needing to have a say on Article 50. Other more minor shit. And it's not like their losses aren't also doing good work exposing some rancid shit.

Including for bad service.

ah yes, an email a day late

Yes, but the point is that if you crowd fund you should get it right. It’s not your own money you’re throwing away. (I think the email was sent to the wrong address wasn’t it?)

As for the rule of law, I will admit that I tend to be suspicious of politically motivated actions in the Administrative Court. That applies to Jolyon’s actions as much as it did to, say, the hunting ban case that went up to the House of Lords and the judicial review that tried to assert liability for war crimes against Blair.

I'm sure you can see the irony in the GLP being held to account for an email based procedural breach.

ETA: In case I was too subtle

[Plim]

Jolyon Maugham.

Gobby left-wing barristers on Twitter are unsurpassable in their self-importance, pomposity and wankiness.

and being very good at it

The GLP page that tweet links to is about a challenge to the levelling up fund. Whatever one thinks of the fund, opposing it as an alleged means of benefiting Tory interests is about as nakedly a political challenge as it’s possible to get: “…but we think it’s just a way to funnel money into constituencies of political benefit to the Conservative Party.”

Even assuming there’s some substance in the objection, what government hasn’t spent money in its electorate’s and therefore its own interests? That would rule out much substantial policy spending. (My favourite historical example is Wilson’s funding for the Humber Bridge just before a local by-election. Nothing wrong with the decision, but it did the government of the day a big favour.)

Why should more taxpayers’ money be used up in court time and in instructing lawyers to fight this off? It’s an issue for voters, not lawyers and judges.

I’d also question what the basis of the figures is. Many JRs are wholly misconceived from the start, some of them desperate last ditch efforts. If the GLP is using decent solicitors and counsel they bloody well ought to get past the permission stage. 78% permission success for a group that’s cherrypicking its actions doesn’t sound very impressive.

[MoreOrLess]

The GLP page that tweet links to is about a challenge to the levelling up fund. Whatever one thinks of the fund, opposing it as an alleged means of benefiting Tory interests is about as nakedly a political challenge as it’s possible to get: “…but we think it’s just a way to funnel money into constituencies of political benefit to the Conservative Party.”

Even assuming there’s some substance in the objection, what government hasn’t spent money in its electorate’s and therefore its own interests? That would rule out much substantial policy spending. (My favourite historical example is Wilson’s funding for the Humber Bridge just before a local by-election. Nothing wrong with the decision, but it did the government of the day a big favour.)

Why should more taxpayers’ money be used up in court time and in instructing lawyers to fight this off? It’s an issue for voters, not lawyers and judges.

I’d also question what the basis of the figures is. Many JRs are wholly misconceived from the start, some of them desperate last ditch efforts. If the GLP is using decent solicitors and counsel they bloody well ought to get past the permission stage. 78% permission success for a group that’s cherrypicking its actions doesn’t sound very impressive.

Absolutely agree!

When the judiciary belives that the Government should be defending a new hearing every 2 months (on average) from a single claimant then I'm not sure it's the claimant that's at fault.

[Plim]

I'm not saying they didn't fuck that up, but it wasn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it's also an isolated event.

The simple truth is that without their efforts, the Govt would be getting off scot free. You can be as suspicious as you like, but that doesn't make him or his project a joke - it's pretty important that someone holds the Govt to account, particularly in matters of law. Otherwise we're all even more fucked.

That might be true for some cases but the line between political decisions and matters of law is becoming very blurry. Maugham’s Brexit litigation was very doubtful, in my view, as being anything other than an attempt to achieve a purely political end through the courts. Same with Gina Miller.

I forget which of the GLP’s cases it was (procurement?), but the fact that several MPs jumped on the bandwagon only to be ruled as having no standing as claimants says it all really.

Don't think we'll ever agree that Miller's case was doubtful. Not least because a) it won, and b) the primacy of Parliament is a core part of our political system, and this was the only way to prevent the Government from running roughshod over it.

I get that you feel uncomfortable with the idea that an anti-Brexit campaigner won a court case to prevent a pro-hard-Brexit Government from breaking the law, with the explicit purpose of preventing that Government from getting the Brexit it was clearly aiming for, but I think it's far more important that we are uncomfortable with what the Government has attempted to do (and continues to attempt to do). We are in a very strange situation and frankly the fact that we're down to relying on "activists" like these guys is not a slur against them, but a sign of the shit state of our current attempt at democracy. Someone needs to be able to push back.

But the upshot was a political decision reached through a general election that gave the government its mandate over Brexit. The delays and money spent on getting there were all to no end. (I don’t oppose the MPs’ actions in the commons: that was parliamentary business and perfectly proper.) The SC’s judgment was ultimately futile in a case about pure political choice.

This was not a case about the rights of refugees or planning permission that might leave people homeless or police detention etc. There was no individual’s liberty or well-being at issue: it was a national choice about being in or out of a political agreement.

I voted remain. I wish we were still in the EU.

[Insane_Homer]