Not sure that @timothy_stanley knows what he is talking about. Neither reducing the no. of judges nor “bringing in specialists” amounts to “rolling back” “Blair era” reforms. The HoL judicial committee had the same number of judges as now, and were no less (or more) “specialist”.
https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1327732663990554624
Entirely unclear what “specialist” means here, anyway. Though some have argued that there are too many commercial lawyers and not enough crime/family specialists.
The article is a mess anyway: perhaps because whatever is being discussed is also a mess.
https://twitter.com/georgeperetzqc/status/1327764809346146305
NB the reason why it’s important to pick up on the poor “rolling back the Blair reforms” framing by @timothy_stanley is that it gives the false impression that this is about restoring the status quo ante: a comfortable Tory position.
It isn’t: it’s about cutting back the role that our highest court has *always* played. Not Tory at all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
