Page 48 of the Tory manifesto?

[KenDodd]

What does this mean? And am I right in thinking if something is in the manifesto it can't be blocked by the Lords?

After Brexit we also need to look
at the broader aspects of our
constitution: the relationship between
the Government

Sorry incomplete sentence, it should read-

After Brexit we also need to look
at the broader aspects of our
constitution: the relationship between
the Government
Parliament and the
courts

Any legal bods who know about this and can expand on it for me?

I don't know about the legal implications personally to expand on it myself. But it has got me very worried. These articles give some analysis :
one of the quotes from Joanna Cherry "I suspect the Tories’ plan is to try to put government and executive action beyond legal scrutiny and to roll back human rights in a way usually seen in dictatorships.”
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jolyon-maugham-joanna-cherry-tory-update-human-rights-judicial-review_uk_5ddbb65be4b0d50f329306dd

www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-general-election-brexit-courts-legal-gina-miller-a9218256.html

They don't like the courts holding them to account over Brexit, but also over the human rights of disabled benefit claimants (amongst others).

This government has spent (wasted) many millions fighting judicial review cases brought by vulnerable people who have been disproportionately impacted by chances to the benefit system. They want to restrict this, which I guess they'd try to claim as a money saving measure.

This is a good and necessary thing. There should be separation between an independent Judiciary and Parliament.

Regrettably we have had a hung parliament and instead of the opposition doing its duty to force an election they decided to damage our democracy for political reasons and use the courts to play silly buggers.

It needs sorting out.

It means "Brenda Hale and her ilk need to get back in their box and stop holding us to account"

Does it mean that anything the government does can't be ruled unlawful by the courts? There's no judicial oversight? Or well, that's the Tory plan?

It might equally mean they plan to stop court shopping where you try the same thing in English and Scottish courts hoping one will give you the 'right' result.

Well spotted! This was debated in our local facebook group too. It’s vague on purpose. It basically means that BJ didn’t like the Court telling him he’s not actually allowed to break the law (the prorogation issue and also illegally banning the climate protest from London). It’s genuinely remarkable that he’s only been in office a short time and already broken law more than once. So anyway, he’s trying to work out a way to avoid the Courts ever getting in his way again and has popped this deliberately vague wording into his manifesto, so that whatever he comes up with later he can claim to have a mandate for “because it was in my manifesto so people voted for this.”

It is very very dodgy. He doesn’t want to be Prime Minister, he has no interest in ministering the country. He wants to be King in all but name.

So, if this removes judicial oversight of government by the courts. Thinking back to the Gina Miller case, my understanding of that was that it was actually nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit removes some of our rights (regardless of your stance on Brexit this is a fact) the court case was to establish the rule that government alone (in that case basically Teresa May) can not remove citizens rights without parliamentary approval.

Should Boris Johnson pass into law the above would that then mean the Gins Miller case is null? Would that then mean a future PM could remove right for citizens without us having any recourse to the courts to challenge this? Or a PM could shut down parliament as he/she wishes?