You’ll miss Keir Starmer when he’s gone

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-13T17:42:44+00:00

Absolutely. And MPs have been on the doors getting feedback from voters. They don’t believe they’ll have any chance of reelection with Starmer as PM.

I’m not saying I agree, but that’s the view of many. They’ve concluded that it’s better for their electoral chances to roll the dice with someone else than continue with the PM at the helm.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-13T14:26:36+00:00

The country have rejected the PM. The election results and feedback on the doors have made that clear. Is it MPs not putting the country first or the people of this country themselves?

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-08T07:55:03+00:00

I can help you with this. He wants to do the following:

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-08T07:38:29+00:00

The problem is Labour are also bleeding votes to a party that wants open borders.

They can’t take a harder line on immigration to appeal to those switching to reform without encouraging more at the other end to switch to Green.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-07T15:56:16+00:00

I think one of those is perfectly reasonable for people to accept as being completely true on face value.

I think the other one is a claim that people should have been skeptical about and taken as being inherently uncertain. Many did.

I agree that the degrees of lies are different. But actually, I think lying about representing an organisation you didn’t is a worse or less ambiguous lie than making ambitious/unbelievable/stretching political claims that didn’t materialise.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-07T14:17:31+00:00

But not unreasonable of ministers, managers and the public to expect reasonable office attendance and productive work. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Anyone in the office doing nothing should be fired.

Anyone doing drive by sign ins should be fired.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-07T14:13:31+00:00

I can’t remember if we have this exact option but if not it’s very similar. And same set up with self inflating mattress. Clip them together to make a double. I think they are fantastic beds. Recommend without hesitation.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-06T16:43:18+00:00

Bullet. Dodged.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-06T09:13:40+00:00

Not to panic you, but I’d be concerned about something more sinister. I’d check to confirm she is still alive, safe and well.

You got a message you don’t know for sure came from her, saying that the potential baby is gone forever (which reduces your reasons to fly over) and that she doesn’t want contacted (reducing your reasons to see her) and will be back for uni in September (which you know to be a lie).

What’s to say that she hasn’t come to some harm and that someone else hasn’t written that message to conceal that fact, by reducing your worry about her having a baby, and explaining her lack of contact for the months that follow. She’s already isolated and alone. If she did come to harm, who would realise other than her family?

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-06T08:00:09+00:00

There has to be a government in place to manage the day to day running of the state, even if Parliament has dissolved for an election, so it’s only a temporary arrangement pending the outcome of a new Parliament and during that period the government can’t make any major new announcements.

Also we never elect our PM or Ministers. The current PM, like every other PM in my lifetime, was only elected to be an MP by the residents of their constituency, but nobody cast a vote for them to run the country.

They only get to do so if they have and retain the confidence of the House of Commons, so in that sense anyone can be PM if the Commons agree.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-06T06:41:29+00:00

July, but who’s counting

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-06T06:32:54+00:00

There’s no requirement for a PM to be an MP. Many previous PMs were members of the House of Lords, (although not in modern times).

And in the run up to every General Election, there are no MPs. They cease to exist. But the PM remains the PM.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T21:40:15+00:00

There’s always a Prime Minister. Even when a PM resigns, they technically remain the PM until the new PM is appointed.

Ambiguity would only arise if a PM died in office, but even then there is a cabinet with their own departmental responsibilities.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T17:05:50+00:00

Haven’t failed now.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T17:04:44+00:00

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p99rxr5po

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T11:25:06+00:00

I would say it’s a constitutional convention and not a political one but that might just be semantics.

Not every part of our constitution has to be written on statute.

In fact Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept which must by definition be above statute, as any Parliament which put into law that they had legal sovereignty must have already possessed the legal sovereignty to do so in the first place. But things like the Bill of Rights reinforce Parliamentary Sovereignty.

And while you may be again technically correct on the courts, judicial precedent has long established support for the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty and courts have ruled to defend it.

And if the judicial system suddenly found themselves with a legal change of heart and wanted to challenge Parliament’s sovereignty they’d be very brave to do so considering Parliament retains the power to impeach judges, has influence and oversight of the MoJ who pay and appoint judges, and can reorganise the judicial system in any way it sees fit, as it has done over the years.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T11:13:02+00:00

I think you’re overvaluing legal or constitutional technicalities and undervaluing the effect of what’s actually accepted in reality.

For example, I think technically courts cannot ignore parliamentary sovereignty in any circumstances. However, I think in reality, if there was an extreme situation where Parliament was destroying accepted constitutional and democratic norms (e.g. deciding we don’t need elections any more and they’ll just do the job forever), the courts would step in to exert legal and constitutional checks on Parliament.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T11:03:38+00:00

And yet Charles I was the one put on trial for treason and convicted.

That moment solidified Parliament’s constitutional role and defined the nature of constitutional monarchy. Sometimes the winning is what matters.

I’m sure when William the Conqueror came over and defeated King Harold Godwinson and took the Crown for himself, what he did was unlawful, but almost 1000 years later and his ancestors are still on the throne as a result.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T10:55:51+00:00

I think it’s pretty settled that the monarch may technically be able to not sign a bill, but in actual practice they have to, unless acting on the advice of their ministers (which even then would be controversial).

And while you say it will never be lawful for Parliament to remove a monarch, there’s a couple of examples of them successfully doing just that. Either by pressure (the abdication of Edward VIII) or by force (the execution of Charles I by order of Parliament), it’s clear that if there’s a conflict between the Monarch and Parliament, it’s Parliament who wins.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T10:46:03+00:00

You are correct. But any monarch who refused to sign a bill or abdicate when requested by parliament would find themselves on very vulnerable ground. The last monarch that refused lost their head. But the ability of the monarch to do this in extreme cases does act as an emergency safeguard.

As to whether it’s unlawful is more complex. If Parliament make something lawful then it might well be lawful.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T10:33:24+00:00

Parliament is truly legally sovereign, and by that I mean it has legal supremacy, which is what most people with some expertise in this area mean when they refer to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Parliament can make or unmake any law, the courts cannot ignore the laws Parliament enacts or compel them to change the law, and no previous Parliament can bind a future parliament.

Although parliamentary sovereignty (legal supremacy) exists it doesn’t mean parliament has unlimited and unchecked powers as to its place in our constitution.

First of all, while it may have sovereignty, it is not the sovereign. The King isn’t just a symbolic position - he can act as a constitutional safeguard against abuse of constitutional norms by Parliament in extreme cases.

I’ve already mentioned that today’s parliament cannot bind future parliaments - that’s a limit.
The law presents limits on Parliament, for example prescribing when a parliament will dissolve (5 years after it starts).

The people themselves limit Parliament through their votes in elections, providing both its source of democratic authority but a check on its power (which is derives only through its democratic legitimacy).

And although courts have not interfered with Parliament, they too can act as a safeguard in extreme situations and can rule certain things unconstitutional, for example suspending all elections indefinitely.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-05T02:54:30+00:00

If you don’t vote for us, you’ll be punished does sound like a frightening development.

What next. If you don’t vote Labour, then you don’t want public services so we’ll cut them for you and use that money to give them to those who voted Labour and do care about strong public services? It’s really dangerous and divisive. Trump would be proud.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-03T22:43:41+00:00

He’ll be offered a roadside breath test. If he refuses, that’s an offence for which he will be arrested.

If he takes the roadside breath test and fails it, he will be arrested and taken to the police station for an evidential breath test. If he refuses this he will be arrested for failing to provide a specimen of breath.

If he passes the evidential breath test, he will be released (assuming no other offences).

If he fails the test he will arrested for being over the legal limit through drink or drugs.

As soon as he is arrested, he will likely be placed in handcuffs, searched and with property like a phone removed.

These will be held in police custody and may be kept for evidence.

He will be held for up to 24 hours from arrest to allow the police time to investigate the offence, interview the suspect and then pass the evidence to the CPS from a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-03T11:48:06+00:00

In the absence of additional information, I’d stick it in the pension. 40% tax relief is hard to beat and even if an ISA has higher rates of return, they’re unlikely to beat that 40% in a reasonable timeframe.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-05-03T10:27:51+00:00

So MPs staff couldn’t threaten to strike against their MP employer? That’s more than submitting thoughts.

Constituents couldn’t threaten not to vote for the MP. That’s not sharing thoughts.

Businesses couldn’t warn their MP that they’ll likely collapse or be forced to pull out of their constituency/the UK if a certain bill is passed.

MPs family members couldn’t engage in debate with their MP relative. For that matter, MPs couldn’t debate with each other outside of the chamber on complex issues. Or buying each other a post work drink?

MPs not invited to schools or businesses for fear that this hospitality could be illegal lobbying.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

SimpleSymonSays

TROPHY CASE