Not extremists?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...t-ministers-throw-out-legal-rulings-qxdwm0jw5
Downing Street is to begin a fresh war with judges over a plan to let ministers throw out any legal rulings they do not like.

Boris Johnson wants to further curtail the power of the courts to overrule decisions by ministers through the process of judicial review, The Times has learnt. The move comes after a series of political clashes with judges that started over Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-strike-out-legal-rulings-they-disagree-with

There was a brief exchange in another thread wondering whether the FPTP electoral system insulated us from extremist politicians. It’s pretty obvious to me that it doesn’t.

Is there is any sort of public appetite for such a power grab? Is it mere coincidence that the judicial system has been attacked repeatedly - enemies of the people, sentences reported as too lenient etc?
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...t-ministers-throw-out-legal-rulings-qxdwm0jw5


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-strike-out-legal-rulings-they-disagree-with

There was a brief exchange in another thread wondering whether the FPTP electoral system insulated us from extremist politicians. It’s pretty obvious to me that it doesn’t.

Is there is any sort of public appetite for such a power grab? Is it mere coincidence that the judicial system has been attacked repeatedly - enemies of the people, sentences reported as too lenient etc?

Not by me, personally, but, when such things are discussed among my circle of friends/acquaintances, I would say, Yes. The "sentences too lenient", in particular is a common opinion.
 
OP
OP
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
Not by me, personally, but, when such things are discussed among my circle of friends/acquaintances, I would say, Yes. The "sentences too lenient", in particular is a common opinion.
That was the point I was making really, it’s one of the ways that people are softened up to accept attempts to dismantle the checks and balances that at least try to keep us from extremism.
 
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice holds a particular place in our constitution. The role as it now exists follows the Constitutional Reform Act which, amongst other things, sought to modernise the role.

They are a senior Cabinet Minister, this being along with Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home/Foreign Secretary one of the great offices of state. In particular they are sworn to uphold the rule of law and to support the Judiciary. They have to work in tandem with the Lord Chief Justice over matters of Judicial Appointments and Discipline. Initial appointees, Lord Falconer, Jack Straw and Ken Clark had both a legal background and the nous to understand their role. Grayling, Gove and Truss were non lawyers and of them only Gove seemed to understand his job was not one where political point scoring was desirable.

After Truss there seemed to be a realisation that the role required a lawyer. Liddington, Gauke and Buckland, or at least the latter two again seemed sensible, moderate and unafraid to stand their ground.

Unfortunately we've now got Raab. Although a lawyer he seems to be not very bright and also a doctrinaire right winger with more than a touch of arrogance. On at least one observation he's riding roughshod over the advice of the Lord Chief Justice on how rape trials are conducted:

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/rape-reforms-could-easily-go-wrong?

That's a barely coded warning from the LCJ.

There's not yet been a constitutional clash. The next few months may be interesting.
 

deptfordmarmoset

Senior Member
The problem for this government is that the law courts have been consistently finding that they're acting outside the law. An interesting detail that I came across while looking at the Good Law Project's site (this was being discussed in the sleaze thread) was that, while an average of only 17% of cases get allowed to go to judicial review, 11 out of 14 GLP cases have been allowed.

So, given the choice between acting within the law and curtailing legal powers....
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
That was the point I was making really, it’s one of the ways that people are softened up to accept attempts to dismantle the checks and balances that at least try to keep us from extremism.

Let me get this right, the government somehow forces the criminal judges to pass many excessively lenient sentences in order to form the idea in the public mind judges are too soft.

When this has deemed to be have been achieved, the government then launches a pre-planned attack on civil High Court judges, who very rarely lock anyone up.

The public then back this because a burglar got a suspended sentence.

Assuming you oppose whatever it is the government is trying to do, I hope you can at least come up with a coherent argument.
 
Let me get this right, the government somehow forces the criminal judges to pass many excessively lenient sentences in order to form the idea in the public mind judges are too soft.

When this has deemed to be have been achieved, the government then launches a pre-planned attack on civil High Court judges, who very rarely lock anyone up.

The public then back this because a burglar got a suspended sentence.

Assuming you oppose whatever it is the government is trying to do, I hope you can at least come up with a coherent argument.

I don't think the average Joe would quickly differentiate between different types of Judges.

If the message that they're soft/out of touch and interfere in politics is repeated and fed to favourable media outlets like the Mail then over time it gains currency. It's picked up by other media, particularly broadcasters. That's what I meant the other day about influence way beyond their circulation.

Enough of the public see 'lefty liberal' judges as a problem to be solved. Clipping their wings seems acceptable. The public don't click that it affects stuff like benefits or the human rights of their relative in a care home until its too late.
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
I don't think the average Joe would quickly differentiate between different types of Judges.

If the message that they're soft/out of touch and interfere in politics is repeated and fed to favourable media outlets like the Mail then over time it gains currency. It's picked up by other media, particularly broadcasters. That's what I meant the other day about influence way beyond their circulation.

Enough of the public see 'lefty liberal' judges as a problem to be solved. Clipping their wings seems acceptable. The public don't click that it affects stuff like benefits or the human rights of their relative in a care home until its too late.

You seem to be saying the public cornflakes (ho-ho) lots of different things.

Lots of members of the public are just as smart as you are.

They are well able to understand lenient jail terms are a separate matter from often arcane judicial reviews.
 
You seem to be saying the public cornflakes (ho-ho) lots of different things.

Lots of members of the public are just as smart as you are.

They are well able to understand lenient jail terms are a separate matter from often arcane judicial reviews.

Without going down the rabbit hole of 'smart' there are plenty for whom one bloke in a full bottomed wig is just like another.

And that's just what one now retired Justice of the Supreme Court used to refer to as the Uniform Branch.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Not by me, personally, but, when such things are discussed among my circle of friends/acquaintances, I would say, Yes. The "sentences too lenient", in particular is a common opinion.
Let me get this right, the government somehow forces the criminal judges to pass many excessively lenient sentences in order to form the idea in the public mind judges are too soft.

When this has deemed to be have been achieved, the government then launches a pre-planned attack on civil High Court judges, who very rarely lock anyone up.

The public then back this because a burglar got a suspended sentence.

Assuming you oppose whatever it is the government is trying to do, I hope you can at least come up with a coherent argument.


From reading that article I didn't get from it that it was about tougher sentences, but about the much more important aspect of ensuring that the government of the day acts within the rules of law in arriving at its decisions and actions. Much more important than populist or dog-whistle arguments about sentencing.
 
From reading that article I didn't get from it that it was about tougher sentences, but about the much more important aspect of ensuring that the government of the day acts within the rules of law in arriving at its decisions and actions. Much more important than populist or dog-whistle arguments about sentencing.

The government might try set an agenda where a chunk of the population conflate one sort of Judge with another.....
 

Pale Rider

Veteran
The government might try set an agenda where a chunk of the population conflate one sort of Judge with another.....

B-b-but those self same interfering judges have just let Boris off the hook in his scrape over Priti Patel.

The poor man won't know whether to hug 'em or strangle 'em.

Looks like it's very complicated running a government conspiracy.
 
Top Bottom