Thank you Steven for this quick podcast tonight. The subject matter is, or seems to me, to be huge in terms of what Lord Hermers actions will negatively do to this country. If I’ve understood you right, then if he does not like what a minister does, or proposes, he will stop it with a 'snitch clause', even if it’s his own Labour government?! How can he hold a government or country to ransom like that? Why would the Bollard want this morally bankrupt man as his Attorney General as he has now made things even more difficult to pass or get through.
Thank you, Steven. That was so clear and concise. So, we have a Bollard and now we have a Barricade. Bollards and Barricades are normally there to keep the people out and that is exactly what these two men are doing. Have a good rest of the evening.
Thank you. Harmer's a post-nation human rights bureaucrat and so is Starmer. They both believe in the concept of pooling sovereignty in the shape of UN global governance & are signatories to the Pact. The legal arm is the ICC/ICJ.
As Blair said, "political parties should form alliances with their sister parties" to keep out alternative politics (eg populism). Ergo Labour campaigning for Biden during his election - it's how Truss was removed (Biden, Shultz et al all came out against her bcse she disrupted bureaucracy).
Back to Harmer, he's the necessary rock with which Starmer can enforce net zero, migration, human rights used to remove human rights, taxation, egalitarianism, foreign aid etc - "it's international law.
How many understand for example that foreign aid is set at UN level, or that the UNHCR has the legal right to resettle refugees to the UK?
Chagos: this is part of 'colonial compensation.'
It's all about embedding the UN Pact agenda into UK law & removing nation states ability to diverge. That's Harmer's sole reason d'etre.
May I ask how can the voters get rid of Starmer's Gang if he and his gang decide, on whatever pretext, not to hold a general election when parliament dissolves automatically in 2029?
The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 automatically dissolves a parliament after five years. As far as I can see there is nothing in that or any other Act requiring a general election to follow the dissolution. The government remains in office and is given the power to call a general election, but there is no necessity for one in law. As far as I can tell it is only constitutional convention that a general election should be called. The Institute for Government says:
"A prime minister ‘requests’ a dissolution. The circumstances in which that request might be refused are, however, ambiguous. The government has published ‘dissolution principles’ during the process of enacting the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act. This builds on advice from the 1950s, known as the Lascelles Principles, which set out how a monarch might refuse a request if a parliament remained “vital, viable, and capable of doing its job”, if an election would be detrimental to the national economy or if the monarch can find another prime minister who could “govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons”. No prime minister in modern times, as far as is known, has been refused a dissolution and the principles for refusing one have therefore not been tested."
I think it would not be difficult for Starmer's Gang to advise the King that it would be unwise to hold a general election until circumstances are more propitious. Starmer has had no qualms about postponing local elections. As far as I can see Starmer's Gang can stay in power as long as they want.
Thank you Steven for this quick podcast tonight. The subject matter is, or seems to me, to be huge in terms of what Lord Hermers actions will negatively do to this country. If I’ve understood you right, then if he does not like what a minister does, or proposes, he will stop it with a 'snitch clause', even if it’s his own Labour government?! How can he hold a government or country to ransom like that? Why would the Bollard want this morally bankrupt man as his Attorney General as he has now made things even more difficult to pass or get through.
Thank you, Steven. That was so clear and concise. So, we have a Bollard and now we have a Barricade. Bollards and Barricades are normally there to keep the people out and that is exactly what these two men are doing. Have a good rest of the evening.
So effectively he's crippling the country to make decisions or even debate them!
Makes you truly wonder what they're up to? Globalization seems to be the goal by again crippling nation states. Very worrying..
Well said.
Marvellous, thank you.
So helpful, thank you.
Very helpful thank you.
Thank you. Harmer's a post-nation human rights bureaucrat and so is Starmer. They both believe in the concept of pooling sovereignty in the shape of UN global governance & are signatories to the Pact. The legal arm is the ICC/ICJ.
As Blair said, "political parties should form alliances with their sister parties" to keep out alternative politics (eg populism). Ergo Labour campaigning for Biden during his election - it's how Truss was removed (Biden, Shultz et al all came out against her bcse she disrupted bureaucracy).
Back to Harmer, he's the necessary rock with which Starmer can enforce net zero, migration, human rights used to remove human rights, taxation, egalitarianism, foreign aid etc - "it's international law.
How many understand for example that foreign aid is set at UN level, or that the UNHCR has the legal right to resettle refugees to the UK?
Chagos: this is part of 'colonial compensation.'
It's all about embedding the UN Pact agenda into UK law & removing nation states ability to diverge. That's Harmer's sole reason d'etre.
Does that mean he has now overstepped, and is treason territory or could he claim himself as incompetent as a defence
In my opinion yes, in his and the establishment probably no.
as this is now at the stage beyond silly of him
May I ask how can the voters get rid of Starmer's Gang if he and his gang decide, on whatever pretext, not to hold a general election when parliament dissolves automatically in 2029?
The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 automatically dissolves a parliament after five years. As far as I can see there is nothing in that or any other Act requiring a general election to follow the dissolution. The government remains in office and is given the power to call a general election, but there is no necessity for one in law. As far as I can tell it is only constitutional convention that a general election should be called. The Institute for Government says:
"A prime minister ‘requests’ a dissolution. The circumstances in which that request might be refused are, however, ambiguous. The government has published ‘dissolution principles’ during the process of enacting the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act. This builds on advice from the 1950s, known as the Lascelles Principles, which set out how a monarch might refuse a request if a parliament remained “vital, viable, and capable of doing its job”, if an election would be detrimental to the national economy or if the monarch can find another prime minister who could “govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons”. No prime minister in modern times, as far as is known, has been refused a dissolution and the principles for refusing one have therefore not been tested."
I think it would not be difficult for Starmer's Gang to advise the King that it would be unwise to hold a general election until circumstances are more propitious. Starmer has had no qualms about postponing local elections. As far as I can see Starmer's Gang can stay in power as long as they want.
is he maybe doing this on behalf of Starmer?