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.
Not necessarily, it’s more that I think the depth of change New Labour made has an uncomfortable way of popping up when you least expect it, like a bindweed root.
Better to scrape the entire surface off, make sure you have cleared out everything unwanted, than dig little holes here and there.
The Equality Act, as mentioned in the piece above, is something I've been thinking about a lot myself.
In general, it's pretty benign parliamentary act - in that it just collates various pieces of anti-discrimination legislation into one place.
It's become a cliche to say 'repeal the Equality Act!' as a means of signalling intent to carry out serious reform, but all we really need is an amendment to explicitly outlaw positive action/discrimination of any kind.
Another example could be the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act of 1984, which was implemented in response to the Brixton riots - and imposes significant constraints on patrolling police officers, implementing politically correct recommendations from the Scarman report.
Now these days, PACE is the cornerstone of policing practices and codes of conduct, so repealing it in its entirety (and replacing it with something else) would be a colossal undertaking - and frankly it would be reckless to chuck an entire body of carefully crafted legislative architecture on the scrap heap because certain parts of it are undesirable.
But there are modifications that could easily be made to PACE - granting individual officers more powers of discretion - particularly regarding stop & search and powers of arrest. In combination with structural reforms that decentralise police forces, this could transform policing in Britain without a huge raft of legislative change. Let's not overcomplicate things for ourselves.
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.
Sir John 'Pasha' Glubb in his 1975 essay The Fate of Empires explains how in the sixth and final stage of a Nations life - he called The Age Of Decadence you have to reach rock bottom before you rise again under new leadership.
The existing political order, and that includes the charlatan Farage, has to be totally discredited before a new breed can evolve.
I wish it were different but the years ahead will not be easy and there is more serious pain to come
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.
No, just that wholesale reform/ repeal would be better because with small changes you risk creating loopholes. We have too much volume of law it would be like 4D chess to have the surgical precision needed to remove both the 'tumour' and the 'metastises'.
I see your point and in principle agree with you BUT if Pete has done the analysis, which is currently his full time job to do, then I'll bow to his better judgement.
Forget the metastises for a moment (as is that part always necessary?) in that removing the tumour alone can be sufficient to cure the patient. And in removing the tumour you don't remove excess flesh just for the sake of it.
If I personally had the power my approach would be a combination: instant small reforms and then attention being given to the rot within the system itself and cross referencing that with the broader legal underpinnings supporting the rot which could then be repealed in a strategic way, rather than potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater - I get that. I suspect that we on this side of politics instinctively know that we have too much legislation full stop. We want to sweep clean. Its a big temptation but it's not strategic, just a wrecking ball. Essentially I'm arguing for a middle way: rather than just say: it all went wrong in 1998, turn back the clock; the seeds of our problems pre-date 1998 and we should look at it all from the perspective of what exactly is the problem with, for example, the civil service? And marry up the legislative underpinnings with those clearly identified issues in a very specifically targeted way: repeal, replace with precision. There should be overarching principles in the process that constantly relate back to the core mission. It will take 20 years or more of this to achieve a government that is an efficient public servant rather than the current thieving mafia. The wrecking ball approach will not work because it will chreate chaos; the precision repeals will not work because they are not enough.
No, quite the opposite. I am a libertarian and believe government should be almost invisible. The statute book needs to be slashed not tinkered with. However, you cannot just turn the clock back by repealing everything post 1998 and thinking, "There! It will all be OK now". All that does is show you simply do not understand what the problems are. We got where we are from a 1998 position. Just going back solves nothing.
With each passing day I despair at the slop that comes out of Reform. Sub-par failed politicians, half baked ideas from the moronic Zia Yusuf...a man who does not understand how British politics and the constitution works...and a constant need to brag on about their polling numbers. Once interesting political commentators and analysists like Matt Goodwin and Gawain Towler have shaved off about 30 IQ points to join in the tub-thumping braggadocio. And this declared intent to destroy the Conservative Party but merely to defeat Labour...as if the latter doesn't pose the biggest threat to the country. Well, if they do destroy the Conservatives then will they be the standard bearers for the mainstream right and conservatism as a political philosophy? Not a chance. They don't want to...they'll be a mix of SDP social policies, vague libertarianism, cask ale and LibDem style shapeshifting.
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.
But Pete assesses that the changes we need CAN be small and targeted and yet significant - do you think he is wrong?
Not necessarily, it’s more that I think the depth of change New Labour made has an uncomfortable way of popping up when you least expect it, like a bindweed root.
Better to scrape the entire surface off, make sure you have cleared out everything unwanted, than dig little holes here and there.
Apologies for the gardening analogy.
The Equality Act, as mentioned in the piece above, is something I've been thinking about a lot myself.
In general, it's pretty benign parliamentary act - in that it just collates various pieces of anti-discrimination legislation into one place.
It's become a cliche to say 'repeal the Equality Act!' as a means of signalling intent to carry out serious reform, but all we really need is an amendment to explicitly outlaw positive action/discrimination of any kind.
Another example could be the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act of 1984, which was implemented in response to the Brixton riots - and imposes significant constraints on patrolling police officers, implementing politically correct recommendations from the Scarman report.
Now these days, PACE is the cornerstone of policing practices and codes of conduct, so repealing it in its entirety (and replacing it with something else) would be a colossal undertaking - and frankly it would be reckless to chuck an entire body of carefully crafted legislative architecture on the scrap heap because certain parts of it are undesirable.
But there are modifications that could easily be made to PACE - granting individual officers more powers of discretion - particularly regarding stop & search and powers of arrest. In combination with structural reforms that decentralise police forces, this could transform policing in Britain without a huge raft of legislative change. Let's not overcomplicate things for ourselves.
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.
What next?
Sir John 'Pasha' Glubb in his 1975 essay The Fate of Empires explains how in the sixth and final stage of a Nations life - he called The Age Of Decadence you have to reach rock bottom before you rise again under new leadership.
The existing political order, and that includes the charlatan Farage, has to be totally discredited before a new breed can evolve.
I wish it were different but the years ahead will not be easy and there is more serious pain to come
before things improve.
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.
😂 but his description of how legal terminology has turned into verbal diarrhoea (which has to be removed) is relevant.
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.
But Pete assesses that the changes we need CAN small and targeted and yet significant - do you think he is wrong?
No, just that wholesale reform/ repeal would be better because with small changes you risk creating loopholes. We have too much volume of law it would be like 4D chess to have the surgical precision needed to remove both the 'tumour' and the 'metastises'.
I see your point and in principle agree with you BUT if Pete has done the analysis, which is currently his full time job to do, then I'll bow to his better judgement.
Forget the metastises for a moment (as is that part always necessary?) in that removing the tumour alone can be sufficient to cure the patient. And in removing the tumour you don't remove excess flesh just for the sake of it.
If I personally had the power my approach would be a combination: instant small reforms and then attention being given to the rot within the system itself and cross referencing that with the broader legal underpinnings supporting the rot which could then be repealed in a strategic way, rather than potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater - I get that. I suspect that we on this side of politics instinctively know that we have too much legislation full stop. We want to sweep clean. Its a big temptation but it's not strategic, just a wrecking ball. Essentially I'm arguing for a middle way: rather than just say: it all went wrong in 1998, turn back the clock; the seeds of our problems pre-date 1998 and we should look at it all from the perspective of what exactly is the problem with, for example, the civil service? And marry up the legislative underpinnings with those clearly identified issues in a very specifically targeted way: repeal, replace with precision. There should be overarching principles in the process that constantly relate back to the core mission. It will take 20 years or more of this to achieve a government that is an efficient public servant rather than the current thieving mafia. The wrecking ball approach will not work because it will chreate chaos; the precision repeals will not work because they are not enough.
You appear to have gone from wrecking ball to a middle way where as Pete is advocating a very light touch change is all that is needed.
I don't like middle ways or Blair's Third Way trope as with all Lib Dems if you walk in the middle of the road you just get run over!!
No, quite the opposite. I am a libertarian and believe government should be almost invisible. The statute book needs to be slashed not tinkered with. However, you cannot just turn the clock back by repealing everything post 1998 and thinking, "There! It will all be OK now". All that does is show you simply do not understand what the problems are. We got where we are from a 1998 position. Just going back solves nothing.
With each passing day I despair at the slop that comes out of Reform. Sub-par failed politicians, half baked ideas from the moronic Zia Yusuf...a man who does not understand how British politics and the constitution works...and a constant need to brag on about their polling numbers. Once interesting political commentators and analysists like Matt Goodwin and Gawain Towler have shaved off about 30 IQ points to join in the tub-thumping braggadocio. And this declared intent to destroy the Conservative Party but merely to defeat Labour...as if the latter doesn't pose the biggest threat to the country. Well, if they do destroy the Conservatives then will they be the standard bearers for the mainstream right and conservatism as a political philosophy? Not a chance. They don't want to...they'll be a mix of SDP social policies, vague libertarianism, cask ale and LibDem style shapeshifting.