He warned, with astonishing brutality, that such a belief is ‘no different from the claim of communism, fascism, monarchism, Catholicism, Islamism and all the other great isms that have historically claimed a monopoly of legitimate political discourse on the ground that its advocates considered themselves to be obviously right’. Crikey.


The readiness of the courts to hear legal actions against the Prime Minister’s suspension of Parliament is a whole new outrage. Personally, I think Al Johnson’s action was a shabby trick (though it failed to work).


But the idea that the courts should have anything to say about proroguing Parliament is absurd.


There is no law, no precedent. Within our constitution, Prime Ministers can do this sort of thing and often it will be right and necessary.


You might as well get the Supreme Court to rule on whether the red wines of Burgundy are better than those of Bordeaux. The judges could have a lot of fun examining the matter. But their opinion, at the end, would be worth nothing.