Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[Mr Penguin]

I can't read the article but it sounds like a stretch. Having said that, judges often like to opine on things that should be political matters so it wouldn't surprise me if it does get there.

[Wombat3]

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

Do you think Labour will leave the ECHR or just ignore its ruling? I look forward to your reaction when a lawyer in his pyjamas somewhere in the EU puts the legislation on hold. It is shocking that the former DPP is even suggesting it. Just what we have come to expect from the Starnak party though.
Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.

Is this one the new "but he had a Curry"?

No it's just further evidence of the Labour Party apparently lacking the ability to consider all aspects of a policy idea before they open their stupid mouths!

[Vanden Saab]

Mr Penguin said:

I can't read the article but it sounds like a stretch. Having said that, judges often like to opine on things that should be political matters so it wouldn't surprise me if it does get there.

It seems to be a pretty firm view in lawyering circles...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...

[bitchstewie]

That article seems to be about abolishing private schools rather than VAT on their fees.

Edit actually it does mention VAT a couple of times - presume it's an opinion and that's what courts are there to test if it ever makes it that far.

Edited by bhstewie on Saturday 29th June 08:32

[hidetheelephants]

Vanden Saab said:

Mr Penguin said:

I can't read the article but it sounds like a stretch. Having said that, judges often like to opine on things that should be political matters so it wouldn't surprise me if it does get there.

It seems to be a pretty firm view in lawyering circles...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...

Except the article is conflating a load of things Labour doesn't want to do like abolishing private schools, compulsory purchase etc, with the imposition of VAT. It's something that would need testing in court if the opponents are minded, as it doesn't seem cut and dried.

[Wombat3]

hidetheelephants said:

Vanden Saab said:

Mr Penguin said:

I can't read the article but it sounds like a stretch. Having said that, judges often like to opine on things that should be political matters so it wouldn't surprise me if it does get there.

It seems to be a pretty firm view in lawyering circles...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...

Except the article is conflating a load of things Labour doesn't want to do like abolishing private schools, compulsory purchase etc, with the imposition of VAT. It's something that would need testing in court if the opponents are minded, as it doesn't seem cut and dried.

It's not that long ago that Rayner was indeed talking about compulsory purchases etc IIRC.

These opinions from Pannick & co have been around for a while. It'd be optimistic to think they would nor be used as the basis for a legal challenge to the VAT issue ....unless further opinion appears that contradicts.

If a challenge happens it will be messy and take time. It'll be interesting to see if we hear any kind of rebuttal from Labour (and something a bit more convincing than the usual "we're right and they're wrong) over the next few days.

[President Merkin]

Vanden Saab said:

Do you think Labour will leave the ECHR or just ignore its ruling? I look forward to your reaction when a lawyer in his pyjamas somewhere in the EU puts the legislation on hold. It is shocking that the former DPP is even suggesting it. Just what we have come to expect from the Starnak party though.
Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.

This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.

The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.

https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076

[tangerine_sedge]

In normal times I'd handwave such stories away as scaremongering, but I think the only people they are trying to convince is themselves. It's pure copium to fool themselves that a vote for reform or the Tory party is not madness.

[turbobloke]

tangerine_sedge said:

In normal times I'd handwave such stories away as scaremongering, but I think the only people they are trying to convince is themselves. It's pure copium to fool themselves that a vote for reform or the Tory party is not madness.

Madness? Fool? With that bizarre statement both concepts are neatly illustrated. A free vote for a person's Party of preference is democracy not madness nor is it foolish.

People with varied viewpoints voting other than for your preferred Party? Never mind.

[Mr Penguin]

Vanden Saab said:

It seems to be a pretty firm view in lawyering circles...

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...

Here is an alternative view https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732361838592115

And one from a human rights lawyer https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/news/2019/items/the-cha...

The Pannick opinion makes a big jump from closures and assumes that VAT is essentially the same.

[Vanden Saab]

President Merkin said:

Vanden Saab said:

Do you think Labour will leave the ECHR or just ignore its ruling? I look forward to your reaction when a lawyer in his pyjamas somewhere in the EU puts the legislation on hold. It is shocking that the former DPP is even suggesting it. Just what we have come to expect from the Starnak party though.
Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.

This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.

The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.

https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076

Excellent, so as with the example he gives of prisoners being denied the right to vote Labour are going to ignore the ECHR and do it anyway. You are obviously happy for them to break international law etc. Hilarious

[bitchstewie]

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

[S600BSB]

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

[FiF]

JagLover said:

Telegraph has a rather hysterical article about Labour moving public money away from middle-class areas once in power.

Based on a line in the manifesto "they will enact the socia-economic duty in the equalities act 2010".

If true to any extent I suspect hopes of better public services in exchange for more tax might prove to be incorrect in the leafy suburbs, though I am sure we will see the latter.

It all depends, devil in the detail as usual. There are already funds , grants and support available which are targeted at individuals from socio- economically deprived areas.

An example, already application support in higher education is definitely skewed towards applicants from such areas. However this is where the devil is in the detail.

It depends on the definition and granularity of such areas. We've all seen in cities streets where very nice houses are going for well in excess of 1 million, and not talking stupid London prices btw, whilst a couple of minutes walk away you get run down housing with front gardens occupied by sofas and cars being dismantled for scrap. Or nice housing estates on the edge of green belt with a few caravan sites occupied by you know who down the road. All in the same designated socio-economic area.

Problem is who applies for the grants and bursaries for the higher education? It's not the kids from the run down places or the caravan camps, it's the ones from the other areas, mothers returning to work after raising a family, career changers. That's not to say that someone who lives in a nice house who wants to return to work and get into nursing or teaching, say, shouldn't be supported as going to be of benefit to society because clearly they should.

So the question is, as with so many of ideas possibly touted by politicians, what are you actually going to do to back up your pledges, and how will you implement it in detail? Means testing? Again there's already a lot of that in place.

Or is it empty the bins less frequently based on something, because the bet is that it won't be services improved but more like downgraded. Labour, levelling down. If the premise stated by the DT is true, even remotely so.

Edited to correct quote formatting only.

Edited by FiF on Saturday 29th June 09:29

[Wombat3]

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It's actually just observation, what's good for the goose etc..... but you spin it any way you wish (no change there!)

[President Merkin]

Vanden Saab said:

Excellent, so as with the example he gives of prisoners being denied the right to vote Labour are going to ignore the ECHR and do it anyway. You are obviously happy for them to break international law etc. Hilarious

Quite why you are going out of your way to publicly display a cognitive deficiency is a mystery. Perhaps you really cannot process information in which case I can forgive. The alternative though is you are so far down the your own far rght rabbit hole that you just can't brook someone who knows what they're talking about. if it contradicts your core beliefs. That's the handicap of ideology & you appear to be a perpetual victim of it. I almost pity that state. But not enough. It's the politics of fantasists.

[turbobloke]

President Merkin said:

This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.

The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.

https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076

From its creation to the end of 2023, the ECHR made over 300 judgments with at least one violation of an ECHR right against the UK. The position post-brexit has been much better, i,e, interference has been at a lower level, and whlle the UK will follow the Supreme Court, the EHCR can still have an impact. EHCR rule 39 orders aka interim measures aka urgent incjunctions are a case in point. Just such an emission led to prevention of the first deportation flight to Rwanda back in 2022. This delayed implementation until the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill received Royal Assent in April this year, Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.

The quality of judges and the method of their appointment has been a matter of concern in the UK prior to brexit and in other Council of Europe Member States. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe based on three nominations from each Member State. Both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe identified numerous weaknesses in this method. Moving with the customary speed of light these deficiencies haven't been fullly rectified with the reform process ongoing, Some are 'underway'.

Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.

[isaldiri]

hidetheelephants said:

isaldiri said:

Lord Pannick who is a noted and very highly regarded lawyer that has dealt with a lot of human rights cases is pointing out a potential problem with ECHR law. Being shocked or not is entirely up to you.

A lawyer is arguing that his case is right and the opposite case isn't. It's how law works.

You were the one who decided to have a swipe at Pannick due to his school history implying that he was obviously incorrect on potential application of human rights law despite his background as a pretty bloody highly regarded lawyer that has dealt with quite a lot of high profile human rights cases…..

[Puzzles]

Wombat3 said:

Puzzles said:

General Price said:

I see they are going to come after private pensions again.

What have you heard/read on this?

Most likely route would be to limit tax relief to basic rate only.

(Cos that won't affect the "working man", only the filthy rich! )

Is that speculation based on what he hasn’t said? Or has he hinted?

I can’t keep up

[President Merkin]

turbobloke said:

Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.



Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.

Picking the two diamonds out of that steamer, the first is merely a flowery repetition of Sunak's foreign court line & equally dishonest, but no surprises there. The second is your tic making its daily return, another tour of Turbo's greatest hits, including Brexit, Rayner, captain flip flop & the single market. Do you need a reboot?