I value your thoughts and insights into the issues the Nation is currently facing.
However, I’m not so sure regarding your concerns about dismantling the systemic changes to the core of our system of government that have happened over the last 30 years.
It is my opinion that the Blair administration set in place, if not in stone, so many fundamental changes that removed power from Parliament to unelected and unaccountable bodies such as QUANGOS and his newly created Supreme Court, superseding the Law Lords and twined British law into European law- which start out from differing basis, in the UK you can do anything you like if it’s not illegal, in Euro law it’s the opposite- and that has to, must, go.
We need to return governance to the people, via their elected representatives so we restore accountability.
Currently the Supreme Court, and the hundreds of NGO’s are accountable only to themselves.
As Tony Benn once said (in précis) “who are you, who gave you power, and how can it be removed from you”?
I sincerely believe that everything that Blair did needs to be erased, 30 years later we are still finding tripwires in it.
If Reform gain power, they will soon experience the sort of problems Theresa May immediately faced trying to square the circle of Brexit. Every well-heeled activist lawyer (Jolyon Maughron, Gina Miller etc.), ably backed-up by the civil service, academia, the legacy media and three bitterly resentful opposition parties, will embark on a co-ordinated campaign of lawfare, smears and misinformation designed to destabilise the government and back-up up the gears of governance such that they can barely achieve a fraction of their intentions.
Consequently, having a well-considered list of small, more achevable "plan B" actions such as those in your manifesto becomes increasingly valuable over time. I don't think what you're doing is wasted effort at all.
The trick will be to get these ideas in front of Nigel Farage (and possibly Danny Kruger) and profess that he'd implicitly suggested that such prodigiously brilliant tactical maneuvres were Farage's ideas all along.
I would recommend Peter checks out Steven Barrett a barrister who describes statutes from before 1997 and after.
Stevens description of a thin book for each item prior to the 1980s being overtaken by volumes of books for each item after 1997 demonstrates the problem of adjusting British law.
Steven says repeals of whole swathes of statutes is needed.
It is often better to demolish and start again than try to re-model. The problem with tinkering with statutes is that you will often end up with unintended consequences and conflicting precedent in case law. I think Nicholas Craddy above is correct. It's like taking a wrong turn in a journey - better to re-trace your steps back to the beginning and head off in the correct direction than hack your way across country to try to get to where you think you ought to be.
Hi Pete,
I value your thoughts and insights into the issues the Nation is currently facing.
However, I’m not so sure regarding your concerns about dismantling the systemic changes to the core of our system of government that have happened over the last 30 years.
It is my opinion that the Blair administration set in place, if not in stone, so many fundamental changes that removed power from Parliament to unelected and unaccountable bodies such as QUANGOS and his newly created Supreme Court, superseding the Law Lords and twined British law into European law- which start out from differing basis, in the UK you can do anything you like if it’s not illegal, in Euro law it’s the opposite- and that has to, must, go.
We need to return governance to the people, via their elected representatives so we restore accountability.
Currently the Supreme Court, and the hundreds of NGO’s are accountable only to themselves.
As Tony Benn once said (in précis) “who are you, who gave you power, and how can it be removed from you”?
I sincerely believe that everything that Blair did needs to be erased, 30 years later we are still finding tripwires in it.
Still love your work Peter, just my opinion.
If Reform gain power, they will soon experience the sort of problems Theresa May immediately faced trying to square the circle of Brexit. Every well-heeled activist lawyer (Jolyon Maughron, Gina Miller etc.), ably backed-up by the civil service, academia, the legacy media and three bitterly resentful opposition parties, will embark on a co-ordinated campaign of lawfare, smears and misinformation designed to destabilise the government and back-up up the gears of governance such that they can barely achieve a fraction of their intentions.
Consequently, having a well-considered list of small, more achevable "plan B" actions such as those in your manifesto becomes increasingly valuable over time. I don't think what you're doing is wasted effort at all.
The trick will be to get these ideas in front of Nigel Farage (and possibly Danny Kruger) and profess that he'd implicitly suggested that such prodigiously brilliant tactical maneuvres were Farage's ideas all along.
I would recommend Peter checks out Steven Barrett a barrister who describes statutes from before 1997 and after.
Stevens description of a thin book for each item prior to the 1980s being overtaken by volumes of books for each item after 1997 demonstrates the problem of adjusting British law.
Steven says repeals of whole swathes of statutes is needed.
Peter is on the wrong track.
Barrett is a prat.
It is often better to demolish and start again than try to re-model. The problem with tinkering with statutes is that you will often end up with unintended consequences and conflicting precedent in case law. I think Nicholas Craddy above is correct. It's like taking a wrong turn in a journey - better to re-trace your steps back to the beginning and head off in the correct direction than hack your way across country to try to get to where you think you ought to be.