In the new episode of the Talking Politics podcast, David Runciman, Helen Thompson, Catherine Barnard and Chris Bickerton ask what’s at stake in the prorogation case at the Supreme Court:

‘There’s supposed to be a political control over how the executive uses its power, and that comes through the House of Commons and ultimately the electorate. We don’t have a constitution that’s based on the idea that the only recourse that there is to the abuse of power is legal. In fact, we have a constitution that’s based on the idea that the recourse for the abuse of power is supposed to be political. And I would say that if we end up with the Supreme Court saying that this is justiciable, and finds that Johnson used the proroguing power illegally, we’re going to have departed into completely new constitutional territory where the role of the judiciary is concerned, at the very same time that we’ve departed into completely new constitutional territory where we have an executive that has not got the confidence in any shape or form of the House of Commons. We have an executive that has a minus 45 majority, this executive should not exist any longer, it’s in some kind of a zombie state, as far as our constitution is concerned. So if we part company, on the political side, with a really long-standing constitutional principle that the executive has to have a majority in the House of Commons, while we’re parting company, on the judicial side, with saying the judges aren’t supposed to assert some higher principle of constitutional law that they uphold over parliament, then we’re in completely – I mean, I can’t even begin to think where we are constitutionally, it doesn’t make sense.’ – Helen Thompson

Listen to the full episode: lrb.co.uk/talking