Thread 2. Starmer, return of the Labour government

[L1ttledrummergirl]

Yes, lame but the last thread was nearly full.

you rather than who!

Then why did previous Labour administrations choose to follow contrary advice & row back on their manifesto commitments,

What commitments were those?

Re Biden and who else has a chance - this article is interesting. There are 4 possibilities polling higher than Biden (5 if you count Harris, but that’s marginal). Mark Kelly looks interesting. He’s a former astronaut and naval Captain so would appeal to wavering voters who want a strong and patriotic man. He’s 60.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4777222-biden-replacement-democrats-battleground/

Nb I am not affected by the VAT on private schools but I do like the UK govt to adhere to ECHR..., not to mention UK law (which i accept the Govt can change) age discrimination if the policy is restricted to 5-16 or 18 year olds(see McLoed judgment on pensions) or disability discrimation & how this negatively impacts SEN children (without ECHP or Govt funded)

Worth remembering the prisoners votes case was eventually won by the UK. Although mysteriously it wasn't publicised at the time.

Why, it's almost as if the UK parliament is supreme !

Previous Labour administrations policies towards private schools which ranged from abolishing them to applying VAT both of which would have reduced 'pluralism' and human rights according to advice
...and when the Blair administration did retract the policy (Blair tebuked David Blunkett) I also recall Alan Johnson saying that instead he wanted private schools to do more in terms of bursaries, facilities use by the community, sharing of expertise etc.

skinning cats springs to mind

That is going back to 1995?

Indeed Duncin & even going back to 1982 but from a legal perspective what has changed in the ECHR (there are only 16 articles) particularly articles 2 & 14.
From what I can tell, the answer is that nothing has changed & we are still part of the ECHR ....phew!

As Neidle commented in the thread - abolishing private schools was more likely to have a credible an ECHR problem. "There are lots of things that it would be an ECHR breach to ban but everyone accepts they can be taxed...Religious clothing, housing, food...all protected by human rights law, all of them are taxed".

He calls the challenge far fetched - but worth doing it if people want to create more case law.

"They will likely lose any challenge, and even if they win, their prize is a certificate they can frame, not a change in the law"

Parliament is sovereign.

Personally I think there are hundreds of threads dedicated to this topic already.if there is a challenge we will wait to see what comes of it.

https://x.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1813891525803442546

BREAKING: UK Govt and devolved administrations "failed their citizens" in failing to properly prepare for the Covid-19 pandemic, according to devastating first report of public inquiry, with overwhelming evidence that another pandemic likely to hit in near to medium future

Well that’s a shock to precisely nobody…
It was obvious it was being handled badly (to varying degrees).

yeah, that isnt a huge surprise it is. We were too busy planning for a hard Brexit.

If it doesn't comply with the ECHR, I am sure we will find out soon

Even the Telegraph states 'likely' rather that 'definitely'

I want to see justice. Starting with Boris Johnson in court.

Whilst i think Niedle may be grasping at straws as primary board & lodging is VAT free as is most food (religious clothing ffs!) but he does have a point that ECHR will only advise the UK Govt that they would be unacceptable breach.

That said, it seems like the policy will be going through the statute book (rather than a finance bill) and will therefore be advised on again to the AG (a human rights lawyer himself) and be subject to legal scrutiny & amendments by the HoL.

If it gets past all this, which includes many significant legal hurdles, a legal challenge by the ISC does seem inevitable

"Hallett doesn't say the word - "austerity" - but it is clear that she thought public services including the NHS were stretched to breaking point - with health outcomes and health inequalities worsening 7/"

x.com/anushkaasthana/status/1813894332661010771?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

I still think we are only just seeing the impact of austerity on health and public services. A decade of underfunding and alienating the workforce is going to throw a long shadow over us.

Truss has had the nerve to complain about the Civil Service making a political attack on her and her Government 🤬

@Notonthestairs totally- an unnecessary huge public expense too- designed to keep rich people's assets secret and appease headbangers in the Tory's who have strangely now nearly all 'stepped down' as they are aware most intelligent people (who aren't benefitting from hidden assets) now see it's a pile of pup

it's quite amusing really - Truss wanted a more politicised civil service, but not this one. Remember the preemptive dismissals of Tom Scholar and Stephen Lovegrove (National security advisor).
She literally wanted political alignment over competence.

Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock were criticised in the report for failing to update the government’s sole pandemic strategy when they became health ministers

Seconded !

Absolutely.

Tbh if Rayner was Labour Party leader I'd have been more sure of voting Labour than I was (I did!) with Starmer at the helm. The more she talks the more I like her and the more you realise what a decent person she is.

Decent people scare the right wingers!

Is a former MP still the Rt Hon?