Thread 2. Starmer, return of the Labour government

[L1ttledrummergirl]

Yes, lame but the last thread was nearly full.

@DuncinToffee DH and I were watching Newsnight last night when they showed tomorrow’s papers, and immediately questioned why there was an image of Angela Rayner on the front page. They are scared of her in my opinion, she is smart, attractive and connects with young people and those from disadvantaged communities.

She worked as a carer and I heard her having a wonderful conversation with a lady who worked in care when I met her, she is truly empathetic due to her own life experiences.

Thanks for the explainer @Spandauer

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/14/first-covid-inquiry-report-to-set-out-appalling-failures-during-pandemic

it's still weird to wake up everyday not dreading the latest scandal from the Tories.

Excellent that KS has been so visible & statesmanlike at both the NATO summit & this EPC meeting.
Does anybody think Biden may find his Covid dx allows him to step back gracefully? Enjoyed the clip of Emily Maitlis interviewing Farridge (I rhyme it with 'garridge' as it amuses me) He really is an aggressive man - it's just barely under the surface with him too.

He can't help but be rude. I have friends, I don't know if you have any! He squirmed his way around actually saying if Trump wanted him there or had even seen him!

Whatever happened to that dream Taylor Swift/Dolly Parton ticket ?

The bigots are going to vote for Trump anyway, so I'm not sure it's that much of an issue.

Dominic Grieve joins Twitter and 12 hours later has 31K followers

https://x.com/dominicgrieve_?s=21&t=eC_zcFOslE2jS1ASQzcKfg

It is indeed so refreshing to have intelligent and responsible people back in Govt (the huge changes to employment rights are particularly welcome) & being constructive with our European neighbours who must also be breathing a sigh of relief that the Tory's have finally been voted out.
...and a relief too that the UK will adhere to the ECHR (article 3) and international law (refugee conventions etc). It feels almost surreal to think that some Tories actually proposed to take us out of the ECHR.
It remains a concern however that the King's speech contained the sales tax (VAT) on education which apparently polls v.well with Labour members but according to advice to previous Labour administrations could be in breach of articles 2&14 of the ECHR & would be against EU directives on education & unfair Govt intervention in the private sector.

according to advice to previous Labour administrations could be in breach of articles 2&14 of the ECHR & would be against EU directives on education & unfair Govt intervention in the private sector.

Oh, look, the Telegraph cheerleading for the ECHR all of a sudden. You just know what follows will be bollocks ....

A lawyers advice is as useful as a chocolate teapot. It really is worth fuck all. (A lawyer told me this). The only "advice" a lawyer can charge for is when they are in court, and a case is being settled.

Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter how many lawyers you have paid for "advice". If the court doesn't act on it, you have zero comeback. Something you'd have thought we would all have learned these past few years with the Tories who paid big money for advice, only to have the courts decide what the reality was.

So "could" doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

We are not in the EU so the directives are not a concern. As to the ECHR I would follow Dan Neidles advice. ECHR challenges can override acts of Ministers/public officials but cant override acts of Parliament.

Dan Neidle's thread for anyone interested -

The Telegraph says Lord Pannick thinks the ECHR stops Labour putting VAT on private school fees.

He's wrong, and I think almost every tax lawyer will agree with me.

Thread:

x.com/danneidle/status/1806732361838592115?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

I which case I am not sure why previous Labour administrations didn't dismiss the advice if their (i.e. Lord Lester & Lord Pannick) legal advice should be taken with such a large pinch of salt, might have been that the advice was based on case law Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pedersen (judgment of 7 December 1976,)

This is last months dinner reheated. (Although I applaud the Telegraph for recycling).

It's also total and utter horseshit. Frankly, if I were bringing this out, having failed to find any new facts, I would be embarrassed.

Please #bekind and just leave the dreamers to dream. (Although you could subtly suggest that if the UK rejoined the EU, VAT on schools would have to go). Meanwhile I will continue to celebrate it as a genuine Brexit Benefit. You can too if you like.

[email protected].

But I thought we wanted a closer & more constructive relationship with the EU not an even harder brexit

We left the EU. Labour haven't proposed rejoining.
Maybe that will change in the future. Who knows.

And thankfully this policy will have absolutely no influence on our relationship with the EU. I expect this is very far down any list of concerns the EU might have in the future.

There's an infinite spectrum of possibilities between "come here, let's fuck" and "If I see you again you're dead".

Well, if you're a grown up, that is.

Quite @Notonthestairs as long as we are outside the EU we have our own laws. That was what the Brexiteers wanted wasn't it?

Ocht give Farage a break . Wouldn't we all drop our work two weeks after starting to go and help a friend in America? Even if they didn't ask me to come and seemed to be doing really well. Friends innit.

I don't think there is any need to be rude Serendipity, and normally I agree with your posts, but it does seem to me that some will dismiss legal advice (Lester, Pannick etc) that was based on case law and accepted by previous Labour administrations but accept legal advice from Dan Niedle (not based on case law) ....and then cheer on brexit benefits when we are still part of the ECHR & want a closer relationship
What has changed in article 2 & 14 of ECHR thar would make Dan Niedle advice legally sound now?

If you read through Neidle's thread he cites case law.

Then why did previous Labour administrations choose to follow contrary advice & row back on their manifesto commitments, from what I can see nothing has changed with the ECHR & VAT on education was purely populism, a bit like breaching article 3 of the ECHR was v.popular with Tory members

I dont think you have read the thread. That's fine.

As a private school parent who are free to crowd fund a claim and hope Neidle's explanation is incorrect.