It must be pure hell for them….
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
You can buy his book if you want. £10.60 for his politics in hardback.
Not just a blogger then?
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
He's not alone
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 Behr
www.theguardian.com
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
You do realise the article is also by Fowles? and the guardian is the guardian.. politics and journalism.
A reminder that neither KCs nor newspaper columnist are democratically elected by the people.
We all have the right to write what ever stuff we like within reason. To sell a book.. promote a career.. or it might simply be the alignment of your chosen news employer. I'm sure we will see the former entering politics soon.
A reminder that neither KCs nor newspaper columnist are democratically elected by the people.
We all have the right to write what ever stuff we like within reason. To sell a book.. promote a career.. or it might simply be the alignment of your chosen news employer. I'm sure we will see the former entering politics soon.
You do realise that's utter nonsense?
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 Behr
www.theguardian.com
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.
D
Deleted member 174758
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
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 Behr
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.
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
- Many many laws have clauses that say the Home Secretary can add, change or remove stuff. So this is not uncommon.
- 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.
- The judiciary interprets and upholds the laws, if they interpret wrongly, parliament changes the law.
D
Deleted member 174758
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
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
yes the guardian author has a book too.
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.
When the government breaks the law, it's often fait acompli, as it was with proroguing Parliament.
The judiciary only acts if someone brings a case for them to review, as it was with proroguiing Parliament. We were lucky that there were people who were prepared to do that. Otherwise the judiciary would not have reviewed it.
By the time an election comes round, and we have a vote the elections could have been dispensed, or gerrymandered into oblivion.
Who knows when the next wannabe tin pot dictator will act outside of his jurisdiction and behaves unlawfully.
If anyone that wants to bring a case to court is prevented, then the judiciary cannot review the goverment's actions without an applicant.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
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.
You posted two articles to back up his view - it was another article written in the 3rd person about his book, by him.
The guardian is concerned about everything the conservatives do. They are a left wing newspaper.
He’s entitled to his political opinion and any comments he makes outside of his work are nothing more than comments you or I make. Being a KC gives him no special authority.
I prefer democratically elected representatives to run the show than a bunch of unelected lawyers that you can’t vote out.
Sometimes we get both politicians and lawyers in one serving. Starmer, khan etc. all lawyers and also politicians.
Your hatred of Boris ignores the fact that he was democratically elected.
Reform, yes.
Slim down, yes.
But, elected?
As a country (system?), why would we want another tier of clowns?
To rubber-stamp the trough-snuffling / cronyism / fudgetardery?
Jeez us wept.....
You are either so mixed up you don't have a clue what you are saying, or you are being intenionally dishonest.
I posted two articles, neither were connected in any way other than they were both discussing the same subject and shared the same view.
One was a book by Sam Fowles. The other was a newspaper article by Rafael Behr.
Irreleavant, it was two unconnected pieces, by two unconnected and different people, concerned with the government crossing the line of "democratic legitamacy".
I prefer a government that does not break the law. And this Tory government has broken several laws on several different occasions.
How can one respect agovernment that breaks so many laws with impunity?
Dick Turpin was popular, Robin Hood was popular, Ned Kelly was popular, Garry Glitter was popular, Jimmy Saville was popular, etc.
Popularity is no guarrantee of integrity. Anyone who votes and supports a politician based solely on their popularity needs to reflect on their choices.
I have no respect for any politician that breaks the law and is so dishonest on so many occasions.
Boris, especially, deserves the condemnation of the people.