25th October 2022
When Dominic Raab left the Ministry of Justice when Elizabeth Truss became Prime Minister, the blog teased that the Human Rights Act was still there and Raab was not.
Well.
Raab has today returned to the Ministry of Justice as Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor (and Deputy Prime Minister).
And this means things do not look good for the Human Rights Act.
As this blog has previously averred, the Human Rights Act is Moby Dick to Raab’s Captain Ahab:
And so when Raab went, it seemed the Act was safe.
The new Truss administration dropped the “Bill of Rights”, a dreadful mess of a Bill.
That reversal was, it seems, the price exacted by Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, for serving as Welsh Secretary in Truss’s cabinet.
But earlier today, Buckland announced he was leaving the cabinet under the new Prime Minister Rushi Sunak:
It has been an honour to serve as Secretary of State for Wales, and to have served four Prime Ministers as Solicitor General, Justice Minister & Lord Chancellor.
I am leaving the Government at my request but will be supporting @RishiSunak from the backbenches. pic.twitter.com/nPG6u9ZTQf
— Robert Buckland (@RobertBuckland) October 25, 2022
Buckland’s letter refers to a meeting, and one wonders if he again asked for an assurance about the Human Rights Act – and, if so, what the answer was.
*
While Raab was away, his replacement Brandon Lewis had the confidence and sense to negotiate a resolution to the strike by criminal barristers.
It is unlikely that resolution would have happened had Raab stayed on, and it should not be taken for granted that action by criminal lawyers has come to an end.
*
As this blog has previous stated, those who sneer at Raab for not understanding human rights law are wrong.
It is that he does understand it – he just does not care for it.
And this makes him a more formidable opponent to liberals and progressives than someone who is merely ignorant of the applicable law.
We do not know yet whether Raab will now seek to revive the “Bill of Rights” many of us had assumed would pass into oblivion.
There are at least two years left of this parliament and so there is perhaps enough time for him to have a go at forcing the Bill through if he can, regardless of any backbench worries.
He may have difficulty in the House of Lords, however, as the 2019 Conservative Manifesto stopped short of promising to repeal the Human Rights Act.
But for Raab this is unfinished business, and so such an attempt is more than likely.
And for those who have a liberal or progressive interest in the law, we are again that fabled bowl of petunias:
“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again.”
Oh no, not again.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
Oh no not again to so many many things.
In particular, and on the subject of people’s rights, not Suella Braverman again.
Just like the rest of the right wing Tories, Braverman in particular. They don’t think all people should have rights to protect them. Only the people they think deserve rights.
Braverman is an especially unwelcome cabinet returnee. Less than a week since she broke the ministerial code and resigned.
Yup and to complete the terrible twosome overseeing justice and courts we have Suella Braverman as Home Sec – which tells you her resignation from the Truss government on a supposed matter of honour was anything but and almost certainly preplanned with care and dare I say collusion with Sunak’s camp.
Lest we forget this is the KC who as UK AG issued the instruction to all government lawyers that if and when asked for an opinion on the legality of a planned course of action they must not tell their minister that it’s illegal but instead offer a way around the illegality.
I rather fear PM Sunak is going to concentrate on finances and tax and the economy (Hunt will be on a short leash) and to keep the hard right happy allow them carte blanche in areas that he does not care much about.
Instead of concocting a reason to sack Braverman so Sunak could put her back in the cabinet, why not just leave her in place?
The obvious answer would be that a “flood of resignations” from the Cabinet would have helped to undermine any pretense at authority Truss might have had.
By resigning Braverman could have been intentionally trying to make Truss look weak.
They key question, however, is whether the reason for her resignation would disqualify her from a future ministerial position.
40-50 years ago – perhaps a bit less, perhaps a bit more – the majority of elected MPs entered parliament with a genuine intent to serve their constituents and their country. After the last few decades of assault on those norms, we have a situation in which people enter parliament because they want to stick their nose in the trough – they want power, money, or both.
This is party apolytical – it extends to all major parties – as evidenced by the complete lack of interest any of them have in stamping out corruption in and after public office.
Braverman’s resignation didn’t make Truss look weak. She already was known to be weak. Had it not been for the scrum in the voting lobbies later that night mass ministerial resignations might have ensued, but by then Truss knew the game was up.
I still believe the majority of MPs on both sides are honourable. I don’t think any stand as MPs just to be corrupt. You’ve only got to see how they supported the Standards Inquiry into Johnson and the reaction to the attempt to change the rules to save Owen Paterson.
Once they start climbing the greasy pole to the cabinet the temptations of following orders for advancement overcomes their principles. Ultimately the observation of standards lies with the PM and it was under Johnson that ignoring the rules became normal. It wasn’t under previous PMs.
Reinstating Braverman before anyone has properly reviewed what she did may come to hurt Sunak’s attempt to appear to operate honourably.
Because her resignation was needed to oust Thick Lizzie.
She could easily have survived the loss of a minister. It was the rudderless mess over the fracking vote that triggered her resignation. It proved beyond doubt she was not in charge in any sense. Either way she was toast. It was only a matter of time before she realised and resigned. Sunak only had to wait.
Agree but the Home Secretary and with such an attack. I am now wondering if something was being cooked up between SB and RS, given that SB could no longer work with LT for the reasons SB gave, and also because of MPs seeing the cracks appearing in the Fracking off.
For this to work, Braverman would have had to deliberately get herself sacked, then dump on Truss to destabilise her. Seeing as how she didn’t actually report herself, as she claimed, but was faced with what had been discovered and initially denied breaching the rules it seems very unlikely.
Sunak probably did a deal with Braverman to get her support, and thus some more ERG supporters, but that must have been after Truss resigned. Certainly after Braverman was sacked.
I must have missed a trick as I thought Braverman had resigned, without first denying she’d breached the rules, rather than was sacked. I don’t in fact believe conspiracy theories but this situation seemed so odd. However, her initial denial makes Sunak’s offer, and her acceptance, all the worse.
Yes, that was the story she put out but it later emerged it wasn’t what happened. She must have known the truth would come out so why lie about it?
She is addicted to lying and never considers or never cares that the truth will come out. This is why she should not be a minister.
In line with Johnson’s lies about the Parties et al, hoping to get away with it, except she’s not (yet, I hope never) bolstered by the same drooling admiration of people around her.
I find the combination of appointing Raab as Lord Chancellor & Justice sec, Braverman as Home Secretary and Prentiss as AG indicative of Sunak’s possible lack of concern for the rule of law. Time will tell.
I do not think you can group Prentis in easily with those other two – at least not yet
Fair comment, but post Braverman and years of Government contempt for the rule of law a strong AG with principles is necessary. I just hope Prentis is up to it. She will get no help from Raab.
We will see how the Mr Sunak’s cabinet choices play out in the future, I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. With two exceptions, though, Braverman & Raab. Those are the wrong people for these jobs and they have already proven themselves to be so.
https://twitter.com/geraint_smith/status/1585068306733576193?s=46&t=ovNVvuAGDmWUdgthU28ZrA
The 1926 repeal of the requirement for newly appointed ministers to lose their Commons seat and face a ministerial by-election was, in hindsight, one of the worst constitutional adjustments ever inflicted upon the Westminster system.
Reading between the lines, it looks like it was repealed because the electoral franchise was widening and those new voters weren’t willing to stick by an established convention that such by-elections traditionally returned the incumbent!
I would say there’s a case to be made for the repealing of the act which repealed that practice.