Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In my area... 10 years ago, the square meter of land was about 70 UK£, now it's between 210 to 420 UK£.

A direct result of neoliberal politics. And by neoliberal politics I mean of course pure insanity.

The trigger for today's real estate price development was the financial crisis of 2007, and the political decisions that went with it. Casino debts of Too Big to Fail were (and still are) bought up with public debt. The utterly misleading euphemism for this is Quantitative Easing (QE). People with a small remnant of decency and a brain call QE an insane cocktail, consisting of two-thirds criminal energy and one-third sheer idiocy, seasoned with a pinch of economic incompetence and/or ignorance.

One consequence of QE is today's low interest or zero interest rate policy, the wet dream of all speculators and similar low life. The inevitable result of this policy are speculative bubbles. Like stock market bubbles, which mislead idiots to the erroneous assumption they would be rich, or, in your case, real estate bubbles, which cause increasing homelessness.

Someone should test people who still defend QE whether they are able to count to three without making any mistakes. They are clearly a danger to themselves and others.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

If you've read all of this masterpiece maybe you could summarise it here for the of us plebs?

What does he say about referendums, the EU and internet porn?

Of course I've read it - how else could I commend it to you?

It says no more or less than the US constitution on the topics you mention!
I imagine Bagehot would have deprecated the very idea of referendums. as do I.

We must always keep in mind that when Bagehot was writing "us plebs" didn't have a vote let alone a chance to air half witted opinions in referendums.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

It's like asking for a tin of tartan paint

What's wrong with that ?

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

There are no laws which Parliament cannot enact.

Contemplating this fully, scales fell from my eyes. Really. The naivete of my post! Asking about legal words that might shield VEF from Parliament. bion, I forgot, there can't be any! Truly, did not mean to poke at anyone's sensitive parts, tho maybe I did:

Why else, instead of simple "We don't have that" I'm told to 'Go read Bagehot.' Well, that says it. It's all politics. Bagehot is all politics. Your constitution obviates a legal system / judiciary that might check legislation. The judges, the solicitors, they are an Appendix. Figuratively, maybe literally.

How could I forget? "A government of men, not laws." A Bill of Rights. A war. Not to over-simplify, but there it is.

And I should have seen the import of Scoundrel's post. None of the "cases" about legal words or judiciary. A law may be annulled in a kind of abortion/miscarriage, when "the people won't stand for it." Is this part of your constitution, or outside it? Would seem the latter. So, a law can never be unconstitutional. But, rarely, it may be nullified by unconstitutional events. Hmmm .. ..

btw Wendigo's link to that Parl site reveals some fools/knaves now working on a "draft Constitution". Paid by you to do this?! You know they know UK already has a great constitution, so WTF?

a bit more:
@ Roger Allott: Major dissonance going on. You see that Bill of Rights is obstacle to gun legislation. Yet, "illegal law" is to you "illogical"; an impossibilty. You can have both things in mind, no connection made?

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

That's as simple in the UK as it is in the US. You'd purchase a piece of blank paper and look at it. In both countries, one is free to look at it for as long as one likes..

You can stare at blank paper, if it helps. Probably same as consulting a solicitor. We have the B/R. Not always easy answers, but the key to answers. And maybe more important, represents a robust system by which legislation may be checked. Yes, made "illegal".

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

The concept of 'laws that are illegal' can only make sense to someone unfamiliar with logic. The UK's parliament can enact any law it decides to enact, just as the US's legislatures can.

Bright of you to see a legislature can approve anything. Come to US and fix that awful gun problem.

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

The difference is that in the US, the federal legislature is prohibited from enacting certain laws on certain matters, deferring instead to the superiority of individual state legislatures. Similarly, state legislatures are prohibited from enacting certain laws on certain matters, deferring instead to the superiority of federal legislatures..

Your grasp of the intricacies of US Federalism is just awes . . . well, Wait! WTF has this to do with the fact that Constitutions, both State and Federal, are superior to the other laws in both jurisdictions? It helps you handle the dissonance?

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

Obviously, laws cannot contradict a precedent law without some process of enacting a law abolishing the precedent, but that's just mechanics. And equally obviously, some laws are more difficult to abolish than others..

If it's only about what laws precede others, that's trivial. Every law that doesn't say otherwise repeals older if they can't be reconciled. But indeed, "some laws are more difficult to abolish than others." Not to worry, it's "just mechanics"

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

Come to US and fix that awful gun problem.

Can't because the US constitution is so inflexible - it'd be fixed in a week here.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Can't because the US constitution is so inflexible - it'd be fixed in a week here.

That's because you don't have a Constitution anyone can recognize, you noodle. You have to ask half-senile elderly lords what it is, and even they disagree

You make knee-jerk laws without thinking things out... like allowing that seriously dumb-ass referendum, that will damage you no end

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by palo5

That's because you don't have a Constitution anyone can recognize, you noodle. You have to ask half-senile elderly lords what it is, and even they disagree

You make knee-jerk laws without thinking things out... like allowing that seriously dumb-ass referendum, that will damage you no end

Be fair palo mate!

We've had to deal with freedom for eight centuries whereas you're "constitution" only goes back to 1993....following a series of others that were all presumably considered immutable.

Yeah! That went well.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by palo5

[...]
You make knee-jerk laws without thinking things out... like allowing that seriously dumb-ass referendum, that will damage you no end

Your quite right in this point, but sorry - that's democracy (the result).
(Prepared by the really dorky English boulevard press).

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

...
(Prepared by the really dorky English boulevard press).

Which is largely owned by non-English people. Odd that!

[Wendigo]

Wake me up when you're all done with moaning about events from 2016 please
I'm going back to the real world catching up on my monster movies

To show I have no animosity towards our European neighbours I'll start with one of my favourite films of all time which is from Spain.

Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972) aka La noche del terror ciego
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067500/