Probably an amateur compared to MBK.Not just a blogger then?
Lol.
Probably an amateur compared to MBK.Not just a blogger then?
Not just a blogger then?You can buy his book if you want. £10.60 for his politics in hardback.
British democracy is on trial. We can no longer hold our leaders to account; the state has too much power; and the truth doesn’t matter at all. Those we voted into government have nothing but contempt for the democratic system that got them there.
When the Prime Minister illegally prorogued Parliament, barrister Sam Fowles was part of the team that took him to court, and won.
On 28 August 2019 three government ministers raced a court messenger to Balmoral Castle. Literally raced. The ministers were admitted, met with the Queen and came out with the authority to close down parliament. The messenger was blocked by armed guards. Had he been allowed past the gates he would have informed Her Majesty that the ministers’ advice was unlawful. Less than a month later, the Supreme Court would confirm this message.
Contempt for rules is shaking the foundations of British democracy
You do realise that's utter nonsense?You do realise the article is also by Fowles?
A reminder that they're appointed for their experience, knowledge of law, and ability to articulate arguments, among other things.A reminder that neither KCs nor newspaper columnistare democratically elected by the people.
You appear to think that they were both the same person, now you don't seem to be so certain.I'm sure we will see the former entering politics soon.
Fowles wrote this:You do realise that's utter nonsense?
View attachment 312454
Contempt for rules is shaking the foundations of British democracy | Rafael Behr
With its voter ID ruse and a bid to capture the civil service, the government is emulating US Republicans’ winner-takes-all populism, says Guardian columnist Rafael Behrwww.theguardian.com
View attachment 312455
A reminder that they're appointed for their experience, knowledge of law, and ability to articulate arguments, among other things.
Not like MPs who adopt popular ideas in order to be elected, then conveniently forget about their manifesto.
You appear to think that they were both the same person, now you don't seem to be so certain.
- Many many laws have clauses that say the Home Secretary can add, change or remove stuff. So this is not uncommon.So, do you think that in the absence of a written constitution or a bill of rights that individual politicians (such as the Home Secretary) should be allowed to direct the judiciary? I always thought that Parliament made laws and that the judiciary interpreted them - and not that here today, gone tomorrow politicians would take that power to themselved. That would doubtless be unconstitutional.
But such powers should, in a demicrstic society, be extremely limited - not uncommon. Is it not right in a democratic society that the Home Secretary and other ministers should be held to account by parliament? The same should be true for all other government ministers - for example, why should a minister be allowed to decide which laws remain on the statute book and which are scrapped, without any parliamentary oversight? After all, parliament is supposedly the highest authority in the land although the behaviour of at least two recent prime ministers who lied and deceived parliament deliberately and who had no sanctions applied whatsoever- Many many laws have clauses that say the Home Secretary can add, change or remove stuff. So this is not uncommon.
From that any logical person would have to conclude that the upper chamber as it exists should be scrapped and a new elected upper chamber, possibly with some co-opted experts, should be created in its' place. A bit like almost every other modern democracy in the world, really.- All laws are created by parliament, with oversight by the House of Lords. The upper house is not a democratically elected body so has no power to overrule parliament.
You earlier claimed that the article in the Guardian was by Sam Fowles.Fowles wrote this:
Democracy is under attack by those charged to defend it
British democracy is on trial. We can no longer hold our leaders to account; the state has too much power; and the truth doesn’t matter at all. A new book by barrister Dr Sam Fowles unpacks how those we voted into government have nothing but contempt for the democratic system that got them there.thelead.uk
yes the guardian author has a book too.
Now you realise that the article was not by Sam Fowles?You do realise the article is also by Fowles? and the guardian is the guardian.. politics and journalism.
When the government breaks the law, it's often fait acompli, as it was with proroguing Parliament.I agree about the House of Lords. It should definitely be slimmed down.
But ministers are held to account by parliament and yes certain things should be under their control. Otherwise nothing would ever happen.
When we don’t like a government we vote them out. Judges and council have no such accountability.
I made no such claim.You earlier claimed that the article in the Guardian was by Sam Fowles.
Now you realise that the article was not by Sam Fowles?
And you state that both people have written books about politics. Both share the same concern about the risk of the judiciary from government interference.
I think we can agree that there is some concern, among KC's and political reporters, to the extent that they write books expressing their concern.
And they're not 'just bloggers'.
Glad we got that sorted.
the upper chamber as it exists should be scrapped and a new elected upper chamber, possibly with some co-opted experts, should be created in its' plac
You do realise the article is also by Fowles? and the guardian is the guardian.. politics and journalism.
You earlier claimed that the article in the Guardian was by Sam Fowles.
You are either so mixed up you don't have a clue what you are saying, or you are being intenionally dishonest.I made no such claim.
I posted two articles, neither were connected in any way other than they were both discussing the same subject and shared the same view.You posted two articles to back up his view - it was another article written in the 3rd person about his book, by him.
Irreleavant, it was two unconnected pieces, by two unconnected and different people, concerned with the government crossing the line of "democratic legitamacy".The guardian is concerned about everything the conservatives do. They are a left wing newspaper.
I prefer a government that does not break the law. And this Tory government has broken several laws on several different occasions.I prefer democratically elected representatives to run the show than a bunch of unelected lawyers that you can’t vote out.
Dick Turpin was popular, Robin Hood was popular, Ned Kelly was popular, Garry Glitter was popular, Jimmy Saville was popular, etc.Your hatred of Boris ignores the fact that he was democratically elected.