As one of the people whose work is being attacked in this post, I now understand what it feels like to be savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey so memorably put it.
But her view is coherent enough. It is that law should be the instrument of power, and not a constraint upon it.
Law is simply a permanent form of executive command.
This is absolutism - literally the view that the sovereign is 'legibus solutus'. It was first put forward in the seventeenth century, challenged by the common lawyers, and ultimately defeated.
It is an idea utterly alien to British legal and political culture and traditions. And indeed to our whole way of life. We have not been subject to arbitrary government for several centuries. The law is an ass and lawyers devious. But they are there to protect us from government not to help it stamp its boot on our faces.
"But her view is coherent enough" - I disagree; her view is malformed based on inability to distinguish between "advice" and "restraint". I work in a risk-balanced technical discipline. I generate reasoned statements of Risk. I cogitate Mitigation options. I advise a Senior on "tolerate", "treat" (change something) or - in extremis - "terminate" (this line of work). It is up to the Senior to decide to "tolerate" where I had advised "treat" - their call, they're paid more. My evidence is on the record.
The AG’s advice doesn’t block anything, it makes it less likely to be challenged (and defeated) in the courts. Did the Tories never wonder why they kept losing in court?
since Cameron their power of introspection has diminished to the extent that Badenuff literally has no clue as she stands at the despatch box every Wednesday
ditto, Ian, but I held off from being a cunt this week - fucking ace article - excepting my questioning the extent of "power" in the hands of the populist right
The thing to remember about Starmer, Hermer and their ilk is that they have built a livelihood and political career on flooding our country with people who want to rape our daughters and now jail anyone who objects to this.
“She was over-promoted beyond the frontiers of reason “. What a brilliant description of this woman . That she holds any level of public office is rampant over-promotion . 🙄. Thank you again for your excellent work 🙏💯💯
Such a great piece - the description of Braverman (crystal meth, clown eyeball injection) deserves a Pulitzer by itself, but the overall argument, tone and intellectual/moral clarity is world class. Thanks Ian.
Christ, Ian! How do you stay sane doing what you do? I have no idea, but thank you!
"...and is therefore, by any objective measure, a right fucking shady motherfucker." Literally laugh out loud, a masterpiece of descriptive writing 🤣
Me too ….. and I was on the train!
As one of the people whose work is being attacked in this post, I now understand what it feels like to be savaged by a dead sheep, as Denis Healey so memorably put it.
Thanks Ian. I’d completely missed the undermining of Richard Hermer. Not surprised though, the usual pricks involved.
Got to say that the description of Geoffrey Cox as “solid “ seems far more generous than is deserved.
Braverman may express her views risibly.
But her view is coherent enough. It is that law should be the instrument of power, and not a constraint upon it.
Law is simply a permanent form of executive command.
This is absolutism - literally the view that the sovereign is 'legibus solutus'. It was first put forward in the seventeenth century, challenged by the common lawyers, and ultimately defeated.
It is an idea utterly alien to British legal and political culture and traditions. And indeed to our whole way of life. We have not been subject to arbitrary government for several centuries. The law is an ass and lawyers devious. But they are there to protect us from government not to help it stamp its boot on our faces.
No. To say a decision is lawful because it’s unlikely to be challenged is just simply incorrect.
"But her view is coherent enough" - I disagree; her view is malformed based on inability to distinguish between "advice" and "restraint". I work in a risk-balanced technical discipline. I generate reasoned statements of Risk. I cogitate Mitigation options. I advise a Senior on "tolerate", "treat" (change something) or - in extremis - "terminate" (this line of work). It is up to the Senior to decide to "tolerate" where I had advised "treat" - their call, they're paid more. My evidence is on the record.
The AG’s advice doesn’t block anything, it makes it less likely to be challenged (and defeated) in the courts. Did the Tories never wonder why they kept losing in court?
since Cameron their power of introspection has diminished to the extent that Badenuff literally has no clue as she stands at the despatch box every Wednesday
great article! may I be pedantic and say that 'attorneys general' is the plural?
Sorry Ian; this grated with me too but an ace article
ditto, Ian, but I held off from being a cunt this week - fucking ace article - excepting my questioning the extent of "power" in the hands of the populist right
It should be mandatory for all think tanks to publicly disclose all their donors in real time.
The thing to remember about Starmer, Hermer and their ilk is that they have built a livelihood and political career on flooding our country with people who want to rape our daughters and now jail anyone who objects to this.
"reversing Badernoch's changes in basic principle." Do you mean "Braverman's"? Or did I misunderstand that bit? Keep up the great work.
... meh! ... I elected to skip the slip from Bname1 to Bname2
They are interchangeably barstewards
“She was over-promoted beyond the frontiers of reason “. What a brilliant description of this woman . That she holds any level of public office is rampant over-promotion . 🙄. Thank you again for your excellent work 🙏💯💯
Re: Hermer. 🤬🤬 What the f*** is wrong with right wing nutters!?
the fuckers hate the rule of law as the article sets out
Ian DUNT is a useful idiot , boring articles
Met Hermer, solid bloke and a lawyer's lawyer. Hope Starmer steels himself and ensures the mad and the bad inside and out of parliament get sorted.
Brilliant analysis of the current malaise of the compliant media supporting populism
Such a great piece - the description of Braverman (crystal meth, clown eyeball injection) deserves a Pulitzer by itself, but the overall argument, tone and intellectual/moral clarity is world class. Thanks Ian.