exosculate
a stagger with a beat
More of a loose guideline I would say.
David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties
- Thread starter magneze
- Start date
More of a loose guideline I would say.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Not in the eyes of a cunt.
Now consider the nature of politicians.
There's your answer.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
I am advocating we don't have a proper one, sorry that i am so silly.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
All our laws are physically written down somewhere, they're just not collected all together in a single document (which is what is meant by a written constitution)
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
double post
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You can answer that question yourself by thinking about how many unwritten rules you either choose to obey or others pressure you into obeying. You could start another thread on the role of unwritten rules in British society.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Threshers_Flail
Well-Known Member
David Davis isn't a libertarian. I feel that he is of the same brand of Tory who up until recently opposed women's and homosexual's rights, he sees the opportunity to further inflict damage upon Labour, and he takes it. Whether or not he has the full support of Dave is another matter. I agree with others who say that Labour shouldn't stand against him, just let him stand alongside the BNP an UKIP, he wont look good then. Its just a stunt.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Ours is as proper as a written one (it is a constitution...it does what it says on the constitutional tin...fundamental laws and all that); it might not be as good as your preferred type, but that is a different and rather more useful question.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
A codified legally entrenched constitution like the US constitution is not the only kind.
A constitution establishes the code of practice for a state. The statute books do just that.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Indeed. OUr 'unwritten constitution' is written - in various Representation of the People Acts, Parliament Acts etc. - as well as court judgements - its just not codified in a single document. Doesn't mean governments don't have plenty of wriggle room, but it is a constitution.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
#2 Why Roman Catholics can become prime minister.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
And then Labour look like they dont have the courage of thier convictions.
Davies has done this specifically over the 42 day detention law. If Labour did not field a candidate against him it speaks volumes.
For me their best bet would be to not only stand but really throw everything into it. Show that they are willing to really stand up and be counted. Throw off this idea that they are bottlers.
FFS you still dont understand what a constition is do you?
And your arguing that it doesnt exist on a thread inspired by the governments interfering in the constitution!
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
... whereas the Pope shitting in the woods is entirely a matter of precedent
Threshers_Flail
Well-Known Member
I would agree with that if Labour had any chance of winning, but they don't. Labour can simply not stand against him, say the have the backing of the British public on this issue (which they unfortunately do) and declare the whole thing a waste of taxpayers money. Many would agree with them.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
It IS unwritten [our constitution], in that the current government can vote to take away our rights if they so wish.
That's why DD is so narked off at the situ; he seems to feel that the vote betrayed the rights we have left over from MC etc.
Surprised to hear this from the Conservatives tho. Maybe he should join the Liberals, the Tories won't even promise to repeal the 42 days if they get in...
That's why DD is so narked off at the situ; he seems to feel that the vote betrayed the rights we have left over from MC etc.
Surprised to hear this from the Conservatives tho. Maybe he should join the Liberals, the Tories won't even promise to repeal the 42 days if they get in...
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Or you can question yourself about how the slimiest, weasliest, most self-interested people you've known have treated unwritten rules.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
FFS you still dont understand what a constition is do you?
And your arguing that it doesnt exist on a thread inspired by the governments interfering in the constitution!
I understand perfectly well thank you, and I am saying it is not a proper constitution. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Thats probably the other motivation for this - before he was Shadow Home Secretary, IIRC they were officially pro-ID cards and would probably have been pro-this.
No one who understands what a Constitution actually is could rationally take that position.
Especially on a thread discussing changes to the constitution
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or you can ask how the codified and written constituion has worked in the US to protect civil liberties and forget the idea that a written constituion is a universal panacea.
I think that's what they'll do, not stand a candidate either. The message would be they're not interested in pointless publicity stunts. Someone will stand against David Davis though, maybe a Babes for Britain or Monster Raving Loony candidate or something? Just to turn it into a complete joke?
It's a shame it had to be a Tory who did this though. It shows you just how bad the government are when it's the Tories and the Lords standing up for our rights.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Oh I can see the drawbacks of both. It just amazes me that anyone can think a constitution partly based on trust is a good way forward when this is politicians that we're talking about. Politicians. Trust.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I agree that some written constitutions may have within them provisions that make it harder for governments to change things in the original constituion (e.g. requirement for 2/3 majority votes). However... USA - written constitution + Patriot Act
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh I can see the drawbacks of both. It just amazes me that anyone can think a constitution partly based on trust is a good way forward when this is politicians that we're talking about. Politicians. Trust.
It's not based on trust. That's a total misunderstanding of what 'it' is.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
That sentence works just as well if you take out the 'un'.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Labour cannot win this seat, I agree. But they achieve nothing by not standing. It just gives the Tories more grounds to question Labours courage. You need to look back at what happened in September/October 2007 to see that the single perception that allowed Cameron to begin his turn around of forturnes was that of Labour/Brown running scared.
I think Labours only hope of salvaging anything from this is by going totally on the offensive and using this as a chance to paint that Tories as being weak on terrorism. By just sitting back and letting Davies piss over them they garner nothing more than even more contempt.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
There is a precedent. Ken Livingstone resigned his seat on the GLC in 1984 and challenged the Tories to stand against him on the issue of the abolition of the GLC. They refused. Livingstone won 78% of the vote on a 30% turnout.
The Liberals stood against him, but it was a token candidate. There was also a bevvy of independents including one who stood as a 'Gaitskell Labour against Marxist Labour' candidate and got 45 votes to Livingstone's 12,414.
The Liberals stood against him, but it was a token candidate. There was also a bevvy of independents including one who stood as a 'Gaitskell Labour against Marxist Labour' candidate and got 45 votes to Livingstone's 12,414.
David Davies? Patrician? Really?
Similar threads
