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

[Puzzles]

General Price said:

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

What have you heard/read on this?

[FiF]

turbobloke said:

Gender is still a problem for Starmer. Did anyone catch the BBC R5 call-in? Apparently there was another uncomfortable moment when SKS clashed with a female caller who wanted to know why Starmer was “not listening to biological women when they say they don’t want to share a space with biological men”. When he didged the question by talking about his time as Chief Prosecutor, the caller replied by accusing him of “absolute twaddle”.

In fairness he was not allowed to answer but was constantly interrupted. On the other hand the reason he was interrupted is that he was coming up with largely irrelevant anecdotes about his time as a barrister and DPP whilst trying to avoid answering a fairly direct question.

And yes it was diversionary twaddle, mostly.

[Vanden Saab]

Oh how perfectly delicious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-priva...

Telegraph said:

Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.

[Wombat3]

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! )

[hidetheelephants]

Vanden Saab said:

Oh how perfectly delicious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-priva...

Telegraph said:

Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.

Lord Pannick, who attended a private school, is going in to bat for private schools?

[Oliver Hardy]

FiF said:

In fairness he was not allowed to answer but was constantly interrupted. On the other hand the reason he was interrupted is that he was coming up with largely irrelevant anecdotes about his time as a barrister and DPP whilst trying to avoid answering a fairly direct question.

And yes it was diversionary twaddle, mostly.

Went on about how he worked to reduce violence against girls and women, yet the grooming gangs were operating during that time were they not?

[hidetheelephants]

Oliver Hardy said:

FiF said:

In fairness he was not allowed to answer but was constantly interrupted. On the other hand the reason he was interrupted is that he was coming up with largely irrelevant anecdotes about his time as a barrister and DPP whilst trying to avoid answering a fairly direct question.

And yes it was diversionary twaddle, mostly.

Went on about how he worked to reduce violence against girls and women, yet the grooming gangs were operating during that time were they not?

If the police and social services do not send cases to the CPS there's no case for the CPS to do anything with, they are not an investigative body.

[768]

Vanden Saab said:

Oh how perfectly delicious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-priva...

Telegraph said:

Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.

And so it begins.

[JagLover]

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.

[isaldiri]

hidetheelephants said:

Vanden Saab said:

Oh how perfectly delicious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-priva...

Telegraph said:

Sir Keir Starmer’s planned VAT raid on private schools is likely to breach human rights law.
Lord Pannick, who has taken on some of the UK’s most high-profile court cases, backed legal advice warning that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach ECHR law.

Lord Pannick, who attended a private school, is going in to bat for private schools?

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.

[hidetheelephants]

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.

[Vanden Saab]

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.

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.

[borcy]

I think it's possibly best to wait for any theoretical court case to happen before giving too much weight to one person's opinion in a newspaper.

[bitchstewie]

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"?

[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.