Prices of the electricity we use to charge
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Personally, i'd like to see an end to the ability of activist groups to take democratically elected governments to court. People elect governmrnts to do stuff. Parliament is, so we are told, 'supreme' then activists and judges overturn their policies..... Ridiculous!
When governments fail, they are kicked out, like the current one will be. It is up to the people, not judges, to decide who makes laws and who makes policy.
we need safeguards against abuse of power by the government of the day.
Governments can take decisions that affect all of us well beyond the duration of their mandates. If you remove the safeguards, people with lots of money can litterally buy a future government which can for example sell the nation's assets to them or cut their taxes. That has happenned not only in Russia and the USA but in the UK too.
Researchers develop technique to boost sodium-ion battery capacity
Researchers have developed a new technique to solve the problem of how to increase the capacity of sodium-ion batteries.
Last edited:
"The economy: how 14 years of Tory rule have changed Britain – in charts
The effects of austerity, Covid, war and the cost of living crisis are still haunting government and domestic finances "
The effects of austerity, Covid, war and the cost of living crisis are still haunting government and domestic finances "
We are about to see a failed government (which i voted for) given its well deserved 'comeuppance). They will rightly be trashed on July 4th. THAT is how failed governments should be dealt with.
ALL governments enact legislation which outlasts their mandate. Law stays on the books,long after governments fall.
If supreme power lies in the hands of a clique of unelected, unrepresentative lawyers (which is what judges are) given the right to overturn popular policies, why have a parliament and an electoral process at al? Why not just ave an oligarchal panel of people dressed in wigs?
Besides - talk of judges saving us from laws bought by corruption, is not what is happening. They have systematically scuttled the deportation of illegal migrants - a VERY POPULAR policy. Even when the Supreme Court said it was lawful, a foreign court stopped it.
The biggest failure of Sunac and the previous leader, was not making sure that the policies people wanted and voted for were carried out. They had a massive majority of ELECTED representatives and the failed to use it. This will be their epitath. WE COULD HAVE DONE WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR, BUT WE DIDN'T DARE.
ALL governments enact legislation which outlasts their mandate. Law stays on the books,long after governments fall.
If supreme power lies in the hands of a clique of unelected, unrepresentative lawyers (which is what judges are) given the right to overturn popular policies, why have a parliament and an electoral process at al? Why not just ave an oligarchal panel of people dressed in wigs?
Besides - talk of judges saving us from laws bought by corruption, is not what is happening. They have systematically scuttled the deportation of illegal migrants - a VERY POPULAR policy. Even when the Supreme Court said it was lawful, a foreign court stopped it.
The biggest failure of Sunac and the previous leader, was not making sure that the policies people wanted and voted for were carried out. They had a massive majority of ELECTED representatives and the failed to use it. This will be their epitath. WE COULD HAVE DONE WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR, BUT WE DIDN'T DARE.
that is an argument often used by the populist politicians to undermine our insttitutions. Takes civil servants and judges for example, populists often paint them as corrupt to undermine the justice systems. They must follow rules and can only use their sentencing powers within guardrails. They sentence convicted criminals but the conviction itself is by the jury, not by judges. Once people believe that the justice system is corrupt, all we are left with is a dictator regime, albeit elected. Look at how Putin manipulated the Russian parliament to stay in power.
No one here other than you has suggested corruption. You have mentioned it twice in connection with the ONLY people we can remove - the politicians.
What i ssid us that judges should NOT interfere eith what an elected government has decided.
I'm afraid i am always amused at the way people who despise the ordinary, working people, use the term 'populism' as a dirty word. What does it mean? In my view, it means doing what the people want. Democracy.
The szme people who despised the British People for voting to leave the EU, now despise them for wating unregulated, criminal, migrants deported. Hilarious.
Nice ideas, but what would you like to happen if after the election, Sunak and his crew say that democracy doesn't work because we've voted for the wrong people, so they pass a law to stay in power indefinitely. Should judges do something, activists do something, or should we just accept the decision of a democratically elected government?
the word corruption is typically used to describe politicians who use the powers that voters confer to them by their votes to serve themselves. They trade policies for money. None of us can do that.
Our government often make harmful decisions, apply incorrectly the laws, like infringing other existing laws, exceed the scope of the laws they say they are relying on for their decisions, or breaking international treaties that we ratified. Judges then can quite rightly intervene to stop our government. That is the normal way. What you are saying is if the conservative government deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda, our judges should not examine whether those decisions break other existing laws? like human rights? If the conservative governments grant oil exploration license to some companies, the judges should not consider if those licenses break existing laws on net zero and environment protection? Consider the civil servants who have to implement those decisions and those who are harmed by those decisions. After all, those who are harmed deserve some justice and our civil servants cannot be forced to be loyal to the government of the day and break existing laws through implementation of government decisions.
Populism means you put forward simple solutions to complex problems, often relying on partial truth to avoid scrutiny, while attacking your opponents for being corrupt or defeatist. Populists gain votes from those who can't see or don't understand what the complex issues are. I give one recent example: Farage suggested that his government would raise £35 billions simply by telling the BoE to stop paying interest on sterling deposits. On the face of it, yes, the BoE does pay that much money to banks but if banks move their deposits out because they no longer get interest, the BoE would have to print the equivalent amount. What effect would that have on inflation, interest, gilts and other derivatives?
European court president warns over Rwanda rulings
Countries have an obligation to follow its injunctions, the court's head says, as peer prepare to debate the Rwanda bill.
www.bbc.com
Hypothetical, made up fiction.
Pretty funny really.
I'll stick with voting for politicians who REPRESENT the majority and them DOING what they said they eould do, or they lose their job. In the next few weeks, half of the current governing party will be made unemployed precisely because they failed. I'll stick with that any day over a bunch of unelected judges, gainsaying the will of the majority.
That link seems very different to how you were characterising it :European court president warns over Rwanda rulings
Countries have an obligation to follow its injunctions, the court's head says, as peer prepare to debate the Rwanda bill.www.bbc.com
"In June 2022, an ECHR judge used that power to temporarily stop the first Rwanda flight, until the migrants on board had had a chance to put their case to British judges.
That delay in the flight allowed the migrants to take their case to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the entire plan was unlawful."
So it was the UK Supreme Court that ruled the plan unlawful, not the "foreign court" ?
As I understand the plan, it is to send Asylum Seekers, rather than"illegal migrants" to Rwanda to have there cases heard. If , in Rwanda, they are found to be genuinely seeking asylum, then they will stay in Rwanda
Last edited:
It's not that far from reality. Think about how many calls there have been from influential people for a One World government. What's going to happen if Trump wins in USA?
Nevermind Trump, Putin is president since 1999, 25 years ago and probably until he dies. Orban is president since 2010. Xi is supreme leader since 2012. They control the media, suppress opposition , put loyal servants in key positions, change the constitution and are not leaving anytime soon.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
