In which @GuidoFawkes reveals that “senior Tories” don’t understand the principles of judicial review that they think they want to change.
Apparently, “senior Tories” think that judicial review should be confined to “Wednesbury unreasonableness”: and that on that standard they would have won the prorogation case.
This is how they understand Wednesbury unreasonableness (not too bad). 
But this is the fundamental reason why Johnson lost the prorogation case.
If there is *no reason at all* for a Government decision, it will lose a judicial review on the Wednesbury standard.
Unless and until “senior Tories” understand how judicial review actually works, and why the prorogation case was lost, they have no hope of coming up with a coherent reform (let alone one that is right in principle).
(NB - the real issues in the prorogation case weren’t the standard of review - Wednesbury unreasonableness or something else - but the extent to which the court could review the exercise of this royal prerogative power at all. The SC spends most of its judgment on those issues.)
(And, of course, the misunderstanding may be at @GuidoFawkes’ end.)
