Absolutely. I’d add that, in trying to persuade others why the rule of law matters, avoid using the phrase itself. It isn’t clear to those who haven’t been following, and sounds too much like “rule of lawyers”.
Instead, make these points (among others and in no particular order). Rules should be clear. Ministers shouldn’t decide for themselves whether they are acting within their powers or complying with rules: that’s for courts. Governments should stick to agreements they have signed.
Decisions should be taken only after those concerned have a real chance to be heard. Govt decisions should not be biased or contracts awarded to contacts without giving others a fair chance. Governments should be able to be taken to court if they don’t follow those principles.
And so on.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few comments on the legal background to this (it’s the investigation of Darren Grimes in relation to interview with David Starkey where Starkey made grossly racist remarks).
1. For those muttering about New Labour legislation, the legislation at issue, creating offences relating to stirring up racial hatred, is the Public Order Act 1986. It’s Thatcher era legislation (Douglas Hurd being the responsible Home Secretary). legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/…
2. The basic offence (s.18) is (so far as relevant) using insulting language which you intend to stir up racial hatred or which is likely to do so. It doesn’t cover simply interviewing someone who then makes a racist comment (the offence, if any, would be theirs).
Cherry rightly put to Gove his claim in March that the UK would put in place a subsidy control system that the EU would recognise as robust.
She contrasted that claim with the BEIS 9 September pronouncement gov.uk/government/new… that as from 1/1/21 the UK would have no subsidy regime save for administrative “guidance” on how to comply with the UK’s WTO obligations.
An inspiring read for a Sunday: Pope Francis’ encyclical letter “Fratelli Tutti”. vatican.va/content/france…
One point struck me throughout: that the supposed tension between “traditional values” (and what could be more of a “traditional value” than Catholic teaching?) and “liberal” values such as kindness to and respect for migrants and those who are different is utterly illusory.
Indeed, the letter shows how you can build a programme for radical political and social change on foundations that are as traditional as you can imagine. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example.
The concern expressed in this article is a direct consequence of the lack of transparency and democratic accountability for the government’s decisions on local lockdowns. thetimes.co.uk/article/no-cor…
There are serious equality concerns about what is happening.
And apparent different treatment of Tory constituencies - by at least the infection rate/100k metric which seems to have been a major factor in decision-making.
And - a reminder - a UK subsidy regime was a Tory election promise (and a commitment to one was in the Political Declaration on which they fought the election). See
Very important point here. The reason why it is fair to ask Johnson about the detailed regulation in each area of England is precisely because his government - in a centralised way and with very limited democratic scrutiny- makes those regulations. The buck stops with him.
(If someone had asked him about the detailed rules in Aberdeen or Aberystwyth, his answer would, rightly, have been: “ask the 🏴 or 🏴 Ministers about that”.)
The burden of centralisation is that you are accountable for all the decisions taken centrally.