Congratulations on winning the general ignorance round on the supreme court. They only make law to fill lacuna left by the legislature or interpret law to clarify poorly drafted legislation. Otherwise primary legislation is paramount and the supreme court cannot rule against it. And if the government doesn't like a supreme court decision they bring in legislation after the house has properly debated and voted on it.

This is one major concern I have about the current government. With it's big majority it will seek to "reform " the supreme court not because it needs it but through pure vindictiveness given it arrived at a high profile decision the user its schemes.

Checks and balances are there for a healthy democracy.

What next post Brexit.

Hopefully by the end of January we can lock this thread but constitutionally what will a post Brexit politics look like over the next few years.

Post Brexit? This is but a step along the Brexit road. The next crisis will be in around 6 months when the pressure to extend reaches it's peak. If we don't, as is threatened, then another even bigger one comes in 12 months as we once again stagger to the cliff edge of a no deal exit or some kind of fudge. By then I think the Brexit buzzword might be morphing into Rejoin. This is a long way from over.

My hope is that Boris embarks on a series of changes to bring Parliament into the 21st century.

Many of these were in the manifesto! Though I doubt whether many actually noticed anything beyond the catch phrase.

We need:
A codification of the PM's powers so that the supreme court does not interfere or make law themselves.

Be careful what you wish for! If you heard Lady Hale on Radio 4 today she was unequivocal that the SC only interprets the law as and when requested to do so. The SC have not "got themselves into politics" at all and those who were unhappy at their decision are shooting at the messenger. What the Tories are now proposing is to limit people's ability to request judicial reviews, seemingly in revenge for the judgement. If passed this could easily backfire in the future. Ensuring that we all have the law available to us at all times is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and it's limitation a step towards authoritarianism.

Repeal the fixed term Parliament act it hasn't worked.

In what way? Giving the power to decide when it's politically expedient to hold an election to a PM is profoundly undemocratic.

Extension of the recall vote to include MPs who leave a party e.g. switch from Labour to Tory. Let the public decide via a by election.

Would be a huge backward step towards turning our MPs into delegated voting machines.

Modernise the voting system so MPs can vote from home.

From anywhere, securely and in secret. All three together would transform our system and ensure MP's really voted for what they believe is right and not as they have been told to vote.

Abolish the House of Lords and replace with a Senate based on region and PR. At the very least limit the number of peers in the house e.g. 350 and not 800.

Remove hereditary Peers from the Lords for sure but keep the collective wisdom of those with long service and valuable experience. Making more Life Peers if needed. A Senate is not appropriate in our system.

Scrap the Human Rights act and replace with a UK bill of rights and responsibilities.

So long as it extends protections and doesn't limit them, why not?

That should keep Parliament busy for the next few years.

Edited by Badger11 (27 Dec 2019 8.07am)

So your problem is with the opposition and not the forum they channelled their tactics through. I hope the PM shares your view and doesn't seek petty revenge. Time will tell if he is the bigger man worthy of respect.

On hour main point this debate will rage range between codified certainty and fluid and adaptable unwritten.

'Right wing backlash'
Shows a posters colours!
This subject of courts should be from middle ground.
Not left or right.
In which case I would think some 'left wingers' wernt impressed either.

Because it works so well in the states? :0/

They are more than aware that they are unelected which is why they always defer to the supremacy of primary legislation.

The supreme court regularly checks the behaviour of government. This one got exposure because it is Brexit. However one thing that those who leaped aboard the "unelected" right wing backlash is the impact of court decisions. All they can do is declare a decision unlawful. It then goes back to government to have another go but this time do it lawfully.

For that reason an effective check and balance.