NPR

MoreOrLess wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:32 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:13 pm 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.

You think the government - any government - should just give in and accept that it can operate no political policy that a campaign group objects to?

Since there’s been no judgment, just permission, we have no way of knowing who’s “at fault”. And even if the judgment goes GLP’s way, and the government re-takes its decision with more care so that it gets the same result without plausible JR challenge, who’s the beneficiary of the action? This is just not a claim that can do anyone any good, apart from headlines for political opponents of the government. It looks and smells like a misuse of the courts.

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:13 pmThe 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.

Except it clearly is an issue for lawyers and judges, and it's something that is warping the voting process - that's the whole point!

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:39 pmBut 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.

Good Lord. I can't imagine any act that defends the sovreignty of Parliament to be "to no end". Having Brexit not bypass Parliament was an end to itself.

Brexit itself was a national choice. How Brexit was then defined, the nature of the agreement with the EU, how we left, when we left, all of this stuff - that all matters and affects everybody.

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:58 pm

MoreOrLess wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:32 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:13 pm 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.

You think the government - any government - should just give in and accept that it can operate no political policy that a campaign group objects to?

Since there’s been no judgment, just permission, we have no way of knowing who’s “at fault”. And even if the judgment goes GLP’s way, and the government re-takes its decision with more care so that it gets the same result without plausible JR challenge, who’s the beneficiary of the action? This is just not a claim that can do anyone any good, apart from headlines for political opponents of the government. It looks and smells like a misuse of the courts.

All government should be about enacting politcal policy, that's what they've been elected to do (deviations from manifesto pledges, acknowledged). I believe they should follow the prescribed process though, and if they don't want to then they work to change the process.

Just ignoring the processes because you don't like them isn't acceptable for any government and I would hope that anybody would be held to account for that (as you or I would would expect to be if we transgressed the rules).

It would undoubtedly have been better value to the taxpayer for the government to have just followed procedures, rather than ignore them and expose themselves to a JR and the associated legal fees.

MoreOrLess wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:19 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:58 pm

MoreOrLess wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:32 pm

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.

You think the government - any government - should just give in and accept that it can operate no political policy that a campaign group objects to?

Since there’s been no judgment, just permission, we have no way of knowing who’s “at fault”. And even if the judgment goes GLP’s way, and the government re-takes its decision with more care so that it gets the same result without plausible JR challenge, who’s the beneficiary of the action? This is just not a claim that can do anyone any good, apart from headlines for political opponents of the government. It looks and smells like a misuse of the courts.

All government should be about enacting politcal policy, that's what they've been elected to do (deviations from manifesto pledges, acknowledged). I believe they should follow the prescribed process though, and if they don't want to then they work to change the process.

Just ignoring the processes because you don't like them isn't acceptable for any government and I would hope that anybody would be held to account for that (as you or I would would expect to be if we transgressed the rules).

It would undoubtedly have been better value to the taxpayer for the government to have just followed procedures, rather than ignore them and expose themselves to a JR and the associated legal fees.

Procedure and the manner of decision making isn’t what GLP says is the perceived mischief. I quoted from their webpage above. They object on grounds of political disagreement. No doubt procedure will be the basis of the attack, because otherwise the issues would (or rather, should) not be justiciable, but that’s clearly a cloak for the real motive. Which was precisely the problem in the Brexit actions.

I accept that the courts are allowing these cases through to trial, obviously. But that’s a problem with the creep of JR and less judicial deference to Parliament. All modern governments have suffered from ‘lawfare’ attacks, and the problem’s getting worse. Fifty years ago this case would have been shown the door as being a political matter alone.

Time for some limiting legislation IMO.

Oh come the fuck on, the response to this Government's cavalier disregard of the law is to suggest limits on who can challenge them in court? Complaining that lawsuits have political intent when they're about the Government not following the law in order to get political or financial gain?

Why even bother pretending we have a democracy if you're just going to handwave this stuff away? Procedures, regulations, and laws exist around this stuff precisely to avoid abuse and corruption - the answer to the current mob's relentless disregard of these isn't to crack down on the only people willing to actually challenge them on it.

If it was my preferred party in power I'd rather they followed the law and did things the right way from the start.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:41 pm Oh come the fuck on, the response to this Government's cavalier disregard of the law is to suggest limits on who can challenge them in court? Complaining that lawsuits have political intent when they're about the Government not following the law in order to get political or financial gain?

Why even bother pretending we have a democracy if you're just going to handwave this stuff away? Procedures, regulations, and laws exist around this stuff precisely to avoid abuse and corruption - the answer to the current mob's relentless disregard of these isn't to crack down on the only people willing to actually challenge them on it.

If it was my preferred party in power I'd rather they followed the law and did things the right way from the start.

That’s bollocks. I don’t believe you cannot see that many of the GLP’s and some other activists’ objections are rooted in a wish purely for political advantage, not in the rights of individuals suffering under misapplication of the law.

If a government you’d prefer got into office and was constantly subject to admin court challenges by rich Tories you’d call it wrong and an abuse of the courts - and you’d be right. JRs of Tory decisions by crowdfunding are no better.

Very little of this is really about wrongdoing at all. It’s largely about not being willing to accept that one party won an election and trying to frustrate that outcome. In many of these cases trying to find procedural error is just a device to overturn or obstruct policy, not protect personal rights against arbitrary exercise of power or upholding the rule of law. If the government wins the JR about, say, the levelling up fund, I doubt the anti-Tories will be saying “I welcome the vindication of the government in this legitimate exercise of power”.

Amazingly, it’s possible to be anti-Tory, pro-Tory or wholly indifferent but accept the political process and democratic outcomes. Concern about the relationship of JR to political decision-making isn’t new and exists across the political spectrum.

For what it’s worth, I also think the GLP was graceless and petulant in its withdrawal of its objection to Kate Bingham’s appointment. But I expect you believe that challenge was all very sound, in the interests of good governance and not at all a purely politically motivated waste of money.

Generally, if any politician has his or her hand in the till or commits misfeasance they should be hounded out of office and prosecuted. But that’s a different matter to JR. There’s been one attempt at a private prosecution for misfeasance that failed. (Ball v Johnson - when Marcus Ball lost on a JR of the magistrate’s decision he lodged a complaint about bias among the judges: so it seems even the process of judicial review when it’s got a genuine substantive purpose isn’t good enough for some political showboaters in the courts.)

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 5:10 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:41 pm Oh come the fuck on, the response to this Government's cavalier disregard of the law is to suggest limits on who can challenge them in court? Complaining that lawsuits have political intent when they're about the Government not following the law in order to get political or financial gain?

Why even bother pretending we have a democracy if you're just going to handwave this stuff away? Procedures, regulations, and laws exist around this stuff precisely to avoid abuse and corruption - the answer to the current mob's relentless disregard of these isn't to crack down on the only people willing to actually challenge them on it.

If it was my preferred party in power I'd rather they followed the law and did things the right way from the start.

That’s bollocks. I don’t believe you cannot see that many of the GLP’s and some other activists’ objections are rooted in a wish purely for political advantage, not in the rights of individuals suffering under misapplication of the law.

Hang on, a lot of this has less to do with the rights of individuals and more to do with the government grossly overstepping their bounds. The GLP and others wish for the Tories to NOT get a political advantage by breaking laws and ignoring procedure. That's the point. Of course they're anti-Tory, but so what? The law isn't.

If a government you’d prefer got into office and was constantly subject to admin court challenges by rich Tories you’d call it wrong and an abuse of the courts - and you’d be right. JRs of Tory decisions by crowdfunding are no better.

I would only call it an abuse of the courts if it was one. The recent Tory governments absolutely need to be challenged in the courts, that's painfully clear! These are cases worth bringing - valid questions are being asked, of a government that is desperate to avoid scrutiny, has a dreadful track record of honesty and legality, and has been making bank while everyone else suffers. This is not a normal government in many ways.

Very little of this is really about wrongdoing at all. It’s largely about not being willing to accept that one party won an election and trying to frustrate that outcome. In many of these cases trying to find procedural error is just a device to overturn or obstruct policy, not protect personal rights against arbitrary exercise of power or upholding the rule of law. If the government wins the JR about, say, the levelling up fund, I doubt the anti-Tories will be saying “I welcome the vindication of the government in this legitimate exercise of power”.

Amazingly, it’s possible to be anti-Tory, pro-Tory or wholly indifferent but accept the political process and democratic outcomes. Concern about the relationship of JR to political decision-making isn’t new and exists across the political spectrum.

For what it’s worth, I also think the GLP was graceless and petulant in its withdrawal of its objection to Kate Bingham’s appointment. But I expect you believe that challenge was all very sound, in the interests of good governance and not at all a purely politically motivated waste of money.

Generally, if any politician has his or her hand in the till or commits misfeasance they should be hounded out of office and prosecuted. But that’s a different matter to JR. There’s been one attempt at a private prosecution for misfeasance that failed. (Ball v Johnson - when Marcus Ball lost on a JR of the magistrate’s decision he lodged a complaint about bias among the judges: so it seems even the process of judicial review when it’s got a genuine substantive purpose isn’t good enough for some political showboaters in the courts.)

You're sticking to this line about "personal rights" - why can't you accept that it's about more than that?

I do not get how you've sat and watched this Tory government for the last few years and decided that them being challenged in court is the worst outcome. They very clearly need to be held to account in some manner, given they've run roughshod over normal parliamentary norms and that our version of democracy isn't really suited to people who don't give a fuck about being 'hounded out of office'.

For all there is a concern about Tories funding the levelling up by accidentally directing sending those funds into Tory marginals there isn't much of a solution to the issue other than a political choice by the country to vote in someone else or not. All the Tories need to do to avoid a court hearing is get better at their justifications for sending the money into those marginals.

There's a similar problem in my industry where in theory you're not allowed to trade on insider information, but in practice it happens all the time and they just make sure the analysts reports written ahead of time give them sufficient cover to pass a compliance review

Sadly for now the country doesn't much care that Boris spends £50k on wallpaper at an already highly appointed flat, not even if he claims he has no idea where the money was going to come from, whilst denying public workers any sensible pay increase because that would be excessive. The FPP system has team Get Brexit Done covered for now, even the irony of them not doing anything close to such name doesn't count for much as long as you chant the slogan. And if the public mood on that doesn't shift then on this latest the GLP are rather pissing into the wind, the best the GLP can hope for is to shift some public thinking, and maybe it will but it's likely not an especially useful model for doing so.

Plus there's the problem of saying "well, it's up to the voters to handle it when the time comes" when we're talking about a variety of things that are designed to sway voters in the first place, a government in charge of when the election happens, a total lack of coverage of these things from a largely heavily pro-Tory media, etc etc.

There are left of centre media outlets, just not many people read them, it is what it is. The country does seem to vote centre right more than anything else, and as much as the media lead the public they also pander to what the public are like. So if you want power you've a huge core of centre right voters you need to appeal to, and a FPP system that potentially might be gerrymandered still further to overcome into the bargain, and if you can't get it done you can't get it done.

One doesn't have to like how SA play rugby, but if you can't find away around their setpiece, defence and kicking approach where they will win a lot of collisions you're just going to lose. And they will win a lot with their advantages

“All the Tories need to do to avoid a court hearing is get better at their justifications for sending the money into those marginals.”

That’s exactly the point: the courts shouldn’t be looking at ‘justification’, but at process. The success of the government’s justifications is measured by getting re-elected or not.

What justification would be enough for more or less defence or police or NHS spending, or increasing or decreasing income tax or cutting or boosting welfare payments, or (re)nationalising an industry, or outlawing gas boilers? These are policy choices. All could be accused of playing to one part of the gallery or another.

As for why I go on about personal rights needing to be at issue, it’s a principle of JR that a claimant needs standing to bring a claim. Uninterested parties can’t (shouldn’t be able to) just rock up and object for the sake of it, because they oppose the government or the ruling group on the local council. My own view is that the courts have become too lax about standing in JR.

Surely you understand that the inevitable result of what you're demanding is that the Government never gets taken to court because the directly impacted individuals can't afford the time and money to do it?

The Government should abide by the laws and regulations they're supposed to abide by, that's the crux of it. Going even further to limit who can challenge the Govt - particularly THIS one, with its attitude to democratic norms and complete lack of shame - is of no benefit to anyone except this Govt. Accountability is a dirty word to Boris' mob.

also it's totally mad to say that something is justified if it means the Govt gets re-elected, you're essentially saying that everything they do is absolutely fine if it brings them electoral success which is totally backwards and just begs for corruption

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:08 am “All the Tories need to do to avoid a court hearing is get better at their justifications for sending the money into those marginals.”

That’s exactly the point: the courts shouldn’t be looking at ‘justification’, but at process. The success of the government’s justifications is measured by getting re-elected or not.

What justification would be enough for more or less defence or police or NHS spending, or increasing or decreasing income tax or cutting or boosting welfare payments, or (re)nationalising an industry, or outlawing gas boilers? These are policy choices. All could be accused of playing to one part of the gallery or another.

As for why I go on about personal rights needing to be at issue, it’s a principle of JR that a claimant needs standing to bring a claim. Uninterested parties can’t (shouldn’t be able to) just rock up and object for the sake of it, because they oppose the government or the ruling group on the local council. My own view is that the courts have become too lax about standing in JR.

It's perfectly legal to bring a case where the government has failed in the process, and perhaps it has in this, and I don't see the problem with bringing a perfectly legal challenge against the government. I don't even mind helping funding that challenge even whilst realising to prevent such challenges doesn't take much thought on the part of the government, this government may still fail in that because not much thought seems a fair bit beyond them far too often.

Not sure why we'd argue the citizens of a state don't have standing to challenge the legality of a government process. That's just a bit weird, but not beyond this government to look to address rather than their own practices

It’s not “weird” at all. It’s the norm across much of Europe, and notably in the CJEU itself, that JR standing and scope is strongly circumscribed.

I don’t think people shouldn’t be able to challenge the government. I just think JR shouldn’t be misused for essentially political ends. That’s how it was until relatively recently and is a mainstream position, in the past more common on the left because of a fear of conservative judges capriciously finding against reformist policy measures. How times change.

Deserving cases get legal aid.

It does look on the face of it that the GLP is mainly objecting to the government planning to spend money on Northern constituencies where the ignorant voters should know their place. This is on brand for the modern Labour movement.

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:20 am

Deserving cases get legal aid.

Some deserving legal cases get legal aid. It was never all, and thanks to the current mob only a fraction of the sort of deserving cases that were funded still get aid. Pretty disgraceful behaviour they've again taken no political hit for

Interesting that many of the cuts to legal aid have only increased costs in the round as courts are having to deal with applicants who don't understand the legal process and that gums up a system that already worked rather badly

robmatic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:49 am It does look on the face of it that the GLP is mainly objecting to the government planning to spend money on Northern constituencies where the ignorant voters should know their place. This is on brand for the modern Labour movement.

No, it doesn't. It's giving Tory seats money so they continue to vote Tory. Which presumably you can do, but under the guise of leveling up is a sham.

The wierd thing is you take a Tory to court and you're automatically a labour superfan. Jolyon Mughan if you look into his political leanings and activities is certainly not that.

robmatic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:49 am It does look on the face of it that the GLP is mainly objecting to the government planning to spend money on Northern constituencies where the ignorant voters should know their place. This is on brand for the modern Labour movement.

...and certainly the modus operandi of this current bunch in power.
It's basically "pork barrel" politics and a similar wheeze to what Jenrick pulled off when allocating funds out of his department last year. Somehow his own comfortable middle class constituency received £millions and the most needy, poorest constituencies in the country received bugger all

“No, it doesn't. It's giving Tory seats money so they continue to vote Tory. Which presumably you can do, but under the guise of leveling up is a sham.”

Right, so a Labour government funding poorer or neglected areas that has MPs in those seats is OK. But if it’s the Tories then it’s a sham and the whole idea must be struck down by the courts. Got it.

I’m worried about Tory funding in their existing safe seats though. Because that might look like favours to their established voters and therefore any other explanation would obviously be a sham. I think this government had better stop spending money altogether except in areas where they don’t have any MPs. But that might look like bribing people to switch to them. What to do?

The levelling up analysis put the City of London and the Highlands of Scotland at the same level of need for levelling up investment. That's the square mile of the Financial District, not all of London. They did this by excluding all of the transport factors and the commercial property vacancy rate from the calculation in Scotland, when they were included for all areas of England.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:53 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:49 am It does look on the face of it that the GLP is mainly objecting to the government planning to spend money on Northern constituencies where the ignorant voters should know their place. This is on brand for the modern Labour movement.

No, it doesn't. It's giving Tory seats money so they continue to vote Tory. Which presumably you can do, but under the guise of leveling up is a sham.

The wierd thing is you take a Tory to court and you're automatically a labour superfan. Jolyon Mughan if you look into his political leanings and activities is certainly not that.

From an interview with Jolyon:

It’s clear that Maugham cares deeply about the issues he campaigns on. But could there be an ulterior motive? I wonder whether all this might be building up to the launch of a political career.

‘I have considered it,’ Maugham admits. ‘A key member of [Jeremy] Corbyn’s circle was very keen that I should stand as a Labour MP. I ultimately decided against it. It’s not something I presently see in my future but I don’t rule it out.’

That’s a fierce denial of his Labour sympathies.

vibes ahoy...

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:41 pm “No, it doesn't. It's giving Tory seats money so they continue to vote Tory. Which presumably you can do, but under the guise of leveling up is a sham.”

Right, so a Labour government funding poorer or neglected areas that has MPs in those seats is OK. But if it’s the Tories then it’s a sham and the whole idea must be struck down by the courts. Got it.

I’m worried about Tory funding in their existing safe seats though. Because that might look like favours to their established voters and therefore any other explanation would obviously be a sham. I think this government had better stop spending money altogether except in areas where they don’t have any MPs. But that might look like bribing people to switch to them. What to do?

This is some seriously bad faith posting. At least try not to wildly mischaracterise the criticism of the levelling up fund. But it seems pretty clear you think the Nolan principles are a joke, and want the government to be able to operate as they see fit, because if they win votes by doing so, then hey, it means the people wanted them to do it after all.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:41 pm “No, it doesn't. It's giving Tory seats money so they continue to vote Tory. Which presumably you can do, but under the guise of leveling up is a sham.”

Right, so a Labour government funding poorer or neglected areas that has MPs in those seats is OK. But if it’s the Tories then it’s a sham and the whole idea must be struck down by the courts. Got it.

I’m worried about Tory funding in their existing safe seats though. Because that might look like favours to their established voters and therefore any other explanation would obviously be a sham. I think this government had better stop spending money altogether except in areas where they don’t have any MPs. But that might look like bribing people to switch to them. What to do?

This is some seriously bad faith posting. At least try not to wildly mischaracterise the criticism of the levelling up fund. But it seems pretty clear you think the Nolan principles are a joke, and want the government to be able to operate as they see fit, because if they win votes by doing so, then hey, it means the people wanted them to do it after all.

No, it’s not bad faith posting. It’s a reasonable response to crappy one-eyed arguments that deserve some mockery.

It's a sad case of affairs when making it look like you've kept a promise seems more important than actually working towards keeping the promise.

Once you've recognised they are just a bunch of cnuts everything else falls into place and after a while nothing surprises you anymore. This unfortunately is a slippery slope and probably exactly what they want. They really don't give a shit and their response to being found out lying is to lie even more - straight out of the Trump playbook. We are not their target audience, like Trump they are appealing to their core audience of working class, white, Sun reading, jingoistic racists who blame the foreigners who are stealing their jobs, houses and NHS. The very folk they are treating like shit whilst saying they are looking after them.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:49 am Once you've recognised they are just a bunch of cnuts everything else falls into place and after a while nothing surprises you anymore. This unfortunately is a slippery slope and probably exactly what they want. They really don't give a shit and their response to being found out lying is to lie even more - straight out of the Trump playbook. We are not their target audience, like Trump they are appealing to their core audience of working class, white, Sun reading, jingoistic racists who blame the foreigners who are stealing their jobs, houses and NHS. The very folk they are treating like shit whilst saying they are looking after them.

Sigh.

That description applies to absolutely zero of the people I know who vote Tory

Plim wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:20 am It’s not “weird” at all. It’s the norm across much of Europe, and notably in the CJEU itself, that JR standing and scope is strongly circumscribed.

I don’t think people shouldn’t be able to challenge the government. I just think JR shouldn’t be misused for essentially political ends. That’s how it was until relatively recently and is a mainstream position, in the past more common on the left because of a fear of conservative judges capriciously finding against reformist policy measures. How times change.

Deserving cases get legal aid.

If they can get anyone to do it. More and more lawyers are walking away from the legal aid system, because the court system is such a mess. That mess has been exacerbated by Covid, but the delays, cancellations and postponements were happening more and more prior to the pandemic.

The Tories make a great deal out of being a law and order party, and try to get headlines about being tough by increasing sentences. But if those sentences are never imposed because the trial system is broken, then it's all just a show. Many offences are taking 3-4 years to come to trial, and by that time, the sentencing guidelines about time since the offence kick in for a reduction in time served. SO these new maximum sentences will never, ever be given. Because the government won't fund the court system properly.

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:56 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:49 am Once you've recognised they are just a bunch of cnuts everything else falls into place and after a while nothing surprises you anymore. This unfortunately is a slippery slope and probably exactly what they want. They really don't give a shit and their response to being found out lying is to lie even more - straight out of the Trump playbook. We are not their target audience, like Trump they are appealing to their core audience of working class, white, Sun reading, jingoistic racists who blame the foreigners who are stealing their jobs, houses and NHS. The very folk they are treating like shit whilst saying they are looking after them.

Sigh.

That description applies to absolutely zero of the people I know who vote Tory

You need to get out more.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:09 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:56 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:49 am Once you've recognised they are just a bunch of cnuts everything else falls into place and after a while nothing surprises you anymore. This unfortunately is a slippery slope and probably exactly what they want. They really don't give a shit and their response to being found out lying is to lie even more - straight out of the Trump playbook. We are not their target audience, like Trump they are appealing to their core audience of working class, white, Sun reading, jingoistic racists who blame the foreigners who are stealing their jobs, houses and NHS. The very folk they are treating like shit whilst saying they are looking after them.

Sigh.

That description applies to absolutely zero of the people I know who vote Tory

You need to get out more.

Undeniably true

I think you're both right to be honest - it might not be the core Tory vote but it's the one that gave them the big swing this time round, and you only have to look at how execrable some of the new Tory MPs are to realise what attracted their voters

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:29 pm I think you're both right to be honest - it might not be the core Tory vote but it's the one that gave them the big swing this time round, and you only have to look at how execrable some of the new Tory MPs are to realise what attracted their voters

I actually think they are both part of the core and agree that slightly more joined in this time. But to say they are the core and dismiss much of the South of England, particularly Home Counties, and certainly a decent number of middle class Scots is a bit silly.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:29 pm I think you're both right to be honest - it might not be the core Tory vote but it's the one that gave them the big swing this time round, and you only have to look at how execrable some of the new Tory MPs are to realise what attracted their voters

Who were these ‘racist scum’ voting for before to give the swing? Doesn’t make sense. Previous non-voters?

shaggy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:13 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:29 pm I think you're both right to be honest - it might not be the core Tory vote but it's the one that gave them the big swing this time round, and you only have to look at how execrable some of the new Tory MPs are to realise what attracted their voters

Who were these ‘racist scum’ voting for before to give the swing? Doesn’t make sense. Previous non-voters?

A lot of the labour voters in the red wall were and are racist. Like that bigoted old woman Gordon Brown apologised too. Call a spade a spade that old toad was indeed a bigot.

The current conservative party have done a very effective job of dog whistle politics aided and abetted by the right wing tabloids. The road to power for the conservative party is continue the inflation of the property bubble and use the culture war to castigate labour. Jobs a good-un until society collapses under the weight of entirely screwing over the young.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 10:42 am

shaggy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:13 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:29 pm I think you're both right to be honest - it might not be the core Tory vote but it's the one that gave them the big swing this time round, and you only have to look at how execrable some of the new Tory MPs are to realise what attracted their voters

Who were these ‘racist scum’ voting for before to give the swing? Doesn’t make sense. Previous non-voters?

A lot of the labour voters in the red wall were and are racist. Like that bigoted old woman Gordon Brown apologised too. Call a spade a spade that old toad was indeed a bigot.

The current conservative party have done a very effective job of dog whistle politics aided and abetted by the right wing tabloids. The road to power for the conservative party is continue the inflation of the property bubble and use the culture war to castigate labour. Jobs a good-un until society collapses under the weight of entirely screwing over the young.

Thats my point ... the Tory party decided to sell their soul to the devil and adopted the Trump/Bannon game plan to become the populist party promoting their nationalism, racism and jingoism as a means of attracting the votes they needed to get over the line. They were supported by the populist right wing media such as Fox in US or the Sun, Express and Daily Heil in UK, promoting these themes and using Brexit and immigrants in dinghy crossing the channel as the equivalent of Trumps 'Build the Wall' and 'Immigrant Caravans' descending on their southern borders. Both focused on the poor, white working class - the Rust Belt in the US and the previous labour supporting Red Wall seats in the UK to provide the majority required. These became their 'core' voters as without them they wouldn't hold onto power, even at the expense of their more traditional and arguably more sensible core voters. Witness the recent loss in Chesham and Amersham by the tories and the likes of Cheney et al in the US. Both Trump and the blonde Bumblecunt were hoping to use their time in power to do whatever was required to hold onto power, cleansing their parties of their more traditional core or promoting the "Big Steal' or illegally proroguing parliament for example.

However what lies at the core of both Trump and the Blonde Bumbecunt's time in power is corruption, ineptitude, incompetence, deceit and a complete disregard for the norms of a democratic system and inevitably they are found out, democracy wins out and they lose power. Covid and Afghanistan have both come along at the wrong times for these guys and have merely amplified their compete incompetence and inability to run a country - they have been found out. Trump has gone and the Blonde Bumblecunt's time is running out.

Don't agree with time running out dpodin. They've been pretty blatantly and openly corrupt throughout covid and most people don't actually care. The Tory fanboy on here was less upset about the corruption and more annoyed about the court case. Expect that as a default position.

This is a country with sky high meat consumption but cares more about dogs and cats than people who put their lives on the line for us. Once you understand that level of insane cognitive dissonance you understand the electorate.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:30 am Don't agree with time running out dpodin. They've been pretty blatantly and openly corrupt throughout covid and most people don't actually care. The Tory fanboy on here was less upset about the corruption and more annoyed about the court case. Expect that as a default position.

This is a country with sky high meat consumption but cares more about dogs and cats than people who put their lives on the line for us. Once you understand that level of insane cognitive dissonance you understand the electorate.

Oh Jesus, what sort of stupid cult has the modern left become? Have you bothered to read the previous posts? Have you considered the - uncontroversial - arguments about judicial interference in political issues? Do you recognise the difference between not following process and wrongdoing? Do you understand why Jolyon Maugham himself declares as Labour, despite what you said? Do you accept that many voters maligned on here as obnoxious racists used to be solid Labour voters? Do you think the religion of pets and animal rights is a basically Tory thing?

A Labour bot is a fucking tedious thing.

Plim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:32 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:30 am Don't agree with time running out dpodin. They've been pretty blatantly and openly corrupt throughout covid and most people don't actually care. The Tory fanboy on here was less upset about the corruption and more annoyed about the court case. Expect that as a default position.

This is a country with sky high meat consumption but cares more about dogs and cats than people who put their lives on the line for us. Once you understand that level of insane cognitive dissonance you understand the electorate.

Oh Jesus, what sort of stupid cult has the modern left become? Have you bothered to read the previous posts? Have you considered the - uncontroversial - arguments about judicial interference in political issues? Do you recognise the difference between not following process and wrongdoing? Do you understand why Jolyon Maugham himself declares as Labour, despite what you said? Do you accept that many voters maligned on here as obnoxious racists used to be solid Labour voters? Do you think the religion of pets and animal rights is a basically Tory thing?

A Labour bot is a fucking tedious thing.

Exactly. Tory more upset about a legal case than it finding corruption. The case rests.

When the process is a law not following is wrongdoing my friend.

If a racist used to vote labour they would be a racist labour voter.

Plim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:32 pm

I like neeps wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:30 am Don't agree with time running out dpodin. They've been pretty blatantly and openly corrupt throughout covid and most people don't actually care. The Tory fanboy on here was less upset about the corruption and more annoyed about the court case. Expect that as a default position.

This is a country with sky high meat consumption but cares more about dogs and cats than people who put their lives on the line for us. Once you understand that level of insane cognitive dissonance you understand the electorate.

Oh Jesus, what sort of stupid cult has the modern left become? Have you bothered to read the previous posts? Have you considered the - uncontroversial - arguments about judicial interference in political issues? Do you recognise the difference between not following process and wrongdoing? Do you understand why Jolyon Maugham himself declares as Labour, despite what you said? Do you accept that many voters maligned on here as obnoxious racists used to be solid Labour voters? Do you think the religion of pets and animal rights is a basically Tory thing?

A Labour bot is a fucking tedious thing.

Which of course is not anything near as bad as what the self serving, entitled Tory cunts in power are.