Hard to escape that feeling, yeah.
For 1 I hate labour, because they destroyed my community for years, then when they left we got a swimming poolâ:joy: and a play park 
+ the tennis courts actually got fixed again.
Then the European Union gave us a Olympics swimming pool and a sports centre.
But that was when boomers ruined everything and now I believe the JC and Co have the best intentions and would trust them over the Torys 100% of the time all the time.
I wanted to say this but couldnât find the right way to do so⌠I agree here.
@marty
Yeah your not 100% wrong here bro.
Iâve been reading a lot more of labourâs policyâs and they seem good to me and JC has the peopleâs interests at the heart of his policyâs so itâs no wonder the establishment is trying very hard to discredit him.
1 Like
This is maybe slightly too harsh, in retrospect. I think maybe itâs more like thereâs two basic conceptions of the British electorate right now*. The first is that the electorate is divided into four camps: Labour voters who incline to Brexit, Labour voters who incline to Remain, Tory voters who incline to Brexit and Tory voters who incline to Remain.
The second - the one I think is correct - is that itâs divided into Brexiteers who incline Labour, Brexiteers who incline Tory, Remainers who incline Labour and Remainers who incline Tory.
The very fact that Remainers who incline Labour are so adamant that Labour must back Remain no matter what is, I think, evidence that Leave/Remain is actually much more important to at least a plurality of voters than Labour/Tory. This makes it just electoral suicide for Labour to take a side in a referendum. Which unfortunately doesnât apply to the Tories.
And this of course implies also that itâs just electoral suicide for Labour to remain neutral, too. In which case, yes, we are all fucked. Iâm gonna have to think about this now. Have to think about how blackpilled Iâm going to get if both Johnson and Trump win, which is looking increasingly likely. Super fun to be a resident of an irrelevant quasi-banana republic right now.
*Iâm ignoring the Lib-Dems because thatâs what normal people have been doing for decades, donât @ me for that.
1 Like
Is a pro-Brexit Labour voter more like a hippy dippy anti-vaxer or more like a blue collar Obama => stable genius voter?
Very much the latter. Like probably 98% the latter.
Iâm guessing the answer as to why 40% who want Brexit still identify as Labour is a bit more complicated, but expound if you like, Iâm interested; there werenât that many voters who went Obama => Manicula (callback alert, you co-invented that 
). There were some really left anti-establishment people who went for Jill Stein or whatever, but your greens are more popular than ours, so thatâs not the same demo.
Agreed 
1 Like
Like Iâd ever forget Manicula, I mean please 
But Iâm not sure what needs expounding; no doubt the British electorate is as rich a tapestry as any other large mass of people with multiply overlapping and diverging interests. The question is which analysis will yield the most accurate results for various policies. I think the analysis of âLabour/Tories who back Remain/Leaveâ is inaccurate and will lead to doomed policies (for Labour but not for the Tories, annoyingly), while I think that if enough people understood that âBrexiteers/Remainers who back the Tories/Labourâ is a far more useful analysis, Labour could actually win.
But itâs âYou canât get there from hereâ, Iâm starting to think. You canât persuade a bunch of people who think itâs the first case that itâs actually the second. Which, like⌠just turn up the gas, just pump out the carbon, just keep shitting into the sky. Kill us all as quickly as possible and let the insects have a go.
1 Like
Thatâs Labourâs problem - in FPTP they arenât.
Donât ignore the football hooligan demographic. Working class and proud, they voted to get rid of the foreigners but they wouldnât vote for the tories if they were the only party standing.
Of course theyâll happily put a X in the box for Farage, and good luck persuading them that anything that makes the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg so excited is unlikely to be a good thing for them.
1 Like
Not sure if the 70-30 figure is a joke, if so, sorry, but as an expat Iâm too sensitive to let it go. I donât think itâs possible to know for sure given the way we still vote in local constituencies, but every poll of ex-pats prior to the vote I saw had it in the low 70s to remain and 20-ish to leave (rest the usual donât know dummies). Only 9 constituencies voted 70 or more to leave in the whole of the UK.
On Labour and Brexit. The only time the polling has been favourable in the last year or so was when it seemed the Tories wouldnât deliver Brexit and when, if you were inclined to, you could believe Labour might get behind remain. Certainly theyâll win and lose votes if they move to one side or the other, but that seems like the most important factor to me - at least in terms of winning power.
Yesterday should put paid to the muppets accusing Corbyn of being Stalinist. He canât even rig a party conference to look good, that stuff was big Joeâs meat and drink.
How so? Canât that only be the case if the pro-Remains basically demand that Labour ignore, if not outright reject those voters?
Summary of judgment - Key extracts
Supreme court has decided unanimously that prorogation is justiciable
Hale says 11 justices heard the appeal.
The judgment is unanimous, she says.
She says the matter is justiciable.
This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.
No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queenâs Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queenâs Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a âproceeding in Parliamentâ which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.
This Court has already concluded that the Prime Ministerâs advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.
It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.
It follows that the Advocate Generalâs appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Millerâs appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case
Hale says using prorogation to prevent parliament carrying out its role would be unlawful
Hale says there are two issues with a prerogative power.
First, does the power exist?
Second, is it subject to judicial review?
Hale says there is no doubt that the courts can review a prerogative power. All the parties accept that. What is at issue is what are the limits of this power.
Hale says parliament must be able to make laws everyone can obey.
This principle would be undermined if the government could close parliament, she says.
She says parliament must also be able to hold the executive to account.
She says at the moment prorogation will be unlawful if it has the effect of preventing parliament form being able to carry out its constitutional functions.
Hale says using prorogation to prevent parliament carrying out its role would be unlawful
Hale says there are two issues with a prerogative power.
First, does the power exist?
Second, is it subject to judicial review?
Hale says there is no doubt that the courts can review a prerogative power. All the parties accept that. What is at issue is what are the limits of this power.
Hale says parliament must be able to make laws everyone can obey.
This principle would be undermined if the government could close parliament, she says.
She says parliament must also be able to hold the executive to account.
She says at the moment prorogation will be unlawful if it has the effect of preventing parliament form being able to carry out its constitutional functions.Hale says this âprolongedâ prorogation was not normal
Hale says, once that principle is established, the next question is whether this prorogation stopped parliament carrying out its usual functions.
This âprolongedâ prorogation was unusual, she says.
Supreme court rules Boris Johnsonâs prorogation was âunlawfulâ
Hale says the court is âbound to conclude that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawfulâ.
Hale says prorogation âunlawful, void and of no effectâ
Hale says prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament.
Although it takes place in parliament, it is not their decision. It is something that has been imposed on them from outside.
The PMâs advice to Her Majesty was âunlawful, void and of no effectâ.
That means the order in council was also âunlawful, void and of no effectâ.
That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.
Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.
She says it is for the Speaker to decide what happens next.
Updated at
Hale says, after prorogation was announced, when parliament returned, MPs passed an act designed to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
She says the high court in England threw out the legal challenge, saying this matter was not justiciable. But the Scottish court of session said this was justiciable.
Hale says a cabinet meeting was held by conference call soon afterwards to bring the cabinet up to speed. Soon after that the decision was announced, and Boris Johnson wrote to MPs about it.
Hale says Gina Miller then launched a legal challenge.
Hale is explaining the facts of the case.
She describes the visit of three privy counsellors to the Queen at Balmoral.
An order in council was made for parliament to be prorogued.
Jeremy Corbyn says Boris Johnson should âconsider his positionâ as he demands recall of parliament
At the Labour conference Jeremy Corbyn has taken to the stage.
He says the supreme court judgement demonstrates Boris Johnsonâs contempt for parliament.
He says he will write to the Speaker demanding an urgent recall of parliament.
He says a Labour government would want to be held to account. It would not bypass democracy.
And he says Boris Johnson should âin the historic words, consider his positionâ.
That means he thinks Johnson should resign.
And that would make him âthe shortest serving prime minister there has ever beenâ, he says.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1176437564150091776
