Schools 'reopening' - or not - could be quite a big moment for the country. We may be about to test the limits of what a widely distrusted and incompetent Government can achieve by command.
If parents refuse to send children to schools; if headteachers refuse to reopen schools; if teaching unions advise teachers not to turn up; if local authorities advise schools to close and fail to impose fines on parents; what then?
In a State with no meaningful checks on executive power - no higher law, no meaningful second house, a first house collapsing into the executive, a monopolistic state broadcaster... in a State like ours, how does the notion of the consent of the governed express itself?
Government, of course, knows this and I don't think it wants a confrontation it will lose which is why I think we will see it change its position on schools reopening quickly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some noise on my timeline about Keira Bell raising further funds to resist the anticipated appeal of the Tavistock to the Court of Appeal. I can't see anything ethically wrong with her conduct vis-a-vis crowdfunding.
It often happens when you succeed in a case for which you have obtained a costs-capping order that the costs you recover from the other side don't cover your liability to your own legal team.
Indeed, depending on the terms on which your legal team have acted, your liability to them might exceed the total of what you recovered from the other side plus what you crowdfunded. So you have to find more money even though you won.
So, just before Christmas, Government what it called a "response" to this New York Times account of cronyism in pandemic spending. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
And I said, when that "response" - which you can read here gov.uk/government/new… - was published that every single notional rebuttal by Government of a claim made by the New York Times was false, misleading or both.
And it's time for me to make good.
Here's the first "rebuttal" by Government to the New York Times' claim that: "The government handed out thousands of contracts to fight the virus, some of them in a secretive V.I.P. lane."
A rebalancing clause, a review clause, an ECHR kill switch... will investors, having regard to our volatile politics and disregard for the rule of law, want to bet on the trade deal remaining in place?
It would be nice to think Government might now listen to the scientists who have been warning for months that it is dangerous for it to misuse lateral flow tests in such a way that they deliver huge numbers of false negatives.
This ITV report from 10 September identified the problems that have come to pass. But Government nevertheless pressed on. itv.com/news/2020-09-1…
On 17 September lawyers for @GoodLawProject wrote to Government asking for an explanation of who gave the go ahead for the programme and why with these weird counterparties. We have issued proceedings but three months later still have no good explanation. crowdjustice.com/case/operation…
"Failing to act will result in natural catastrophes and changing weather patterns, as well as significant economic damage, supply chain disruption and displacement of populations": @AlokSharma_RDGcrowdjustice.com/case/heathrowh…
Earlier this year, @GoodLawProject brought litigation to force Government to review its planning policy in relation to Energy infrastructure because that policy predated its June 2019 NetZero 2050 commitment.
We believe there is a similar challenge to be brought in relation to Heathrow Airport expansion. The reasoning of the Supreme Court earlier this week is explicitly confined to the state of the world as it existed in June 2018 - before the NetZero target.