Category: Uncategorized

Frost has fallen, before Christmas

18th December 2021

So I spend a good part of today putting together some thoughts about the recent statement by the United Kingdom’s Brexit minister David Frost…

…and he then resigns (or so it is reported).

Frost has fallen, before Christmas.

*

Frost is blaming other things for his resignation, other than himself and the agreements he negotiated with the European Union.

Well.

He would say that, wouldn’t he.

The reality is that the United Kingdom was in the preposterous position of seeking to renege on the very agreements it had only just negotiated and signed.

As Frost had negotiated those agreements it was impossible that he could be taken seriously.

No international agreement negotiator ever had less credibility.

And now he has gone – and the Northern Irish Protocol is still there.

Perhaps, like the North Shropshire by-election result this departure signifies a shift towards post-Brexit politics.

Perhaps it signifies an acceptance of the weakness of the position of the United Kingdom vis-a-vis the European Union on Irish questions when the European Union and Ireland is supported by the United States.

But on any view it means that there can be a fresh start for shaping the post-Brexit relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

At last.

******

This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

A commentator explains why commentary is overrated

23rd October 2021

On the podcast I did this week I averred that commentary is overrated.

*

This may seem odd coming from, well, a commentator.

But then again, perhaps a commentator is well placed to realise their own lack of importance.

*

Many people read or listen to commentators to affirm views that they already hold.

Some do so to adopt views.

And a few may do so to challenge views – like Remainers who follow a Brexiter or vice versa.

Yet – generally – there is little a commentator can offer that an intelligent person cannot work out for themselves.

So in respect of this blog, posts like do not add a great deal.

Where commentary often adds value is when the commentator is in a special position to explain or analyse a certain thing.

So posts on this blog that take apart a case or some other document, or provide a guide to some law or policy phenomenon, can be useful.

And although such posts take time and are at a opportunity cost, such posts are far more satisfying to write.

But unless commentary adds something to a point that the reader or listener could not work out for themselves then the commentary has little value.

However much it affirms what you already think.

*

This is partly why there is currently a mild crisis among columnists.

Once upon a time a columnist – literally – was employed to fill a column of space in a newspaper.

As such, the columnist was a poor third behind adverts and news (and good news reporting was – and is – expensive).

A columnist would be expected to provide copy on a regular (usually weekly) basis, with each opinion lasting (say) 800 words.

And this would be regardless of whether the topic addressed was complex or simple.

But this exercise was, of course, artificial.

Not every topic warrants exactly 800 words.

And some weeks there may be more things to set out a view about, and some weeks there may not be anything worth commenting about.

There was little choice for the columnist, for that was the nature of the medium.

Same length, once a week, every week, same time every week.

Now, with the internet, there is little use for the general regular commentator.

Expert analysis and commentary is a few clicks away on any emerging topic.

A generalist has little or nothing to add.

And so that is why some columnists are giving up, and they are not being replaced.

That is also why some topics – for example the supposed ‘woke’ debate and various moral panics – get undue prominence, as they provide fodder for columnists, either for or against or tutting at both.

*

I commentate here on a daily basis partly for the selfish purpose of forcing myself to write every day.

I also commentate on a daily basis as it forces me to get my mind around some law and policy topic – and so it helps prevent intellectual laziness.

And, as I averred some time ago, there is perhaps a public good in setting out contemporaneous criticism of law and policy, even though law makers and policy makers disregard the criticism.

But the one motivation I do not have as a commentator is the hope and expectation of it actually ever making any practical difference.

The same old mistakes will still be made in the same old way – even if there are new labels for the follies.

So although I will carry on commentating at this blog and elsewhere (though less on Twitter), I do aver it is an overrated activity.

And I am therefore grateful to those of you who read and support this blog, as this enables me to continue doing this instead of other things (or instead of doing nothing at all).

****

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Law and policy and the power of names

22nd October 2021

I was a guest this week on this podcast – so you can listen to my Brummie Wednesday Addams voice:

One of the discussion points was about re-branding – and thereby the power of names.

And as I said, I have often said that a good part of the problems of both the Human Rights Act and the European Union are their names.

Had the Human Rights Act had a more plodding, prosaic name like The European Convention on Human Rights (Construction and Interpretation of Statutes and Related Purposes) Act then a great deal of the political antipathy would dissolve.

And if the European Union was known as the Sir Winston Churchill Memorial International Organisation then perhaps Euro-scepticism may never have got off the ground, let alone Brexit.

That these playful averments are even plausible is, of course, not a Good Thing.

It would be a lot better if people were concerned with the substance rather than the form of such legal regimes.

But they are not.

It is difficult to get people to look at – or care about – the detail of law and policy.

And that is why this blog has a plodding, prosaic name – rather than its predecessor Jack of Kent blog – so it would help focus both its author and its readers on the topic in hand.

Law and policy blogs, like constitutional law, should not be exciting; they should be dull.

****

Please support this dull law and policy blog so that it can continue.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

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.

Comments will not be published if irksome

 

 

The excuse of ‘the king’s evil counsellors’ – Part II

18th July 2021

Over three months ago, his blog had a brief post about ‘the king’s evil counsellors’.

Here it is:

And: he still is – or at least he seems to be.

But: is he?

*

Here is a tweet today from a news journalist about the latest of many rudderless u-turns:

Yet again: the kings evil counsellors.

The plausible deniability of the ‘kings evil counsellors’ is, of course, a thing as old as kingship.

But with the current prime minister, however, perhaps there is a certain plausibility to this plausible deniability.

It is plain that there is little or no central direction – the only driving force from the prime minister is that he wants to get away with things and he is happy for his ministers to get away with things too.

In a strange and curious way, we now have something like the (supposed) classic model of cabinet government in the United Kingdom: the ‘government of departments’.

Each minster seems to be doing exactly what they want.

And, similarly, each Number 10 adviser seems also to be doing what they want.

*

The premise of the old notion of the ‘kings evil counsellors’ is that the ruler would be horrified to know what was being done in their name.

The reality, of course, would be that the king knew full well – the counsellors were just being set up to take the blame.

The current prime minister seems to go one step further: he just does not seem to care.

***

You can subscribe for each post on this blog to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

 

Blogging and comments

3rd June 2021

Yesterdays post on the proposed National Flagship was popular – and under the post are a number of informed, informative and insightful comments, many of which are far more interesting than the head post.

The pride I take in blogging is not so much in my own posts – the quality of which will vary, depending on the topic and on the time and energy and available – but in the comments which my posts can elicit.

In particular, it is wonderful when a post prompts comments that not only add substantially to a discussion but also may not exist for the benefit of others but for the head post.

And that is also why I pre-moderate my comments, taking as much care over which comments are published as newspaper used to take over the ‘letters to the editor’ which were published.

(I approve about nineteen out of every twenty comments – because the moderation policy deters daft and dappy commenters event trying.)

So rather than read a law and policy post from me today, may I encourage you to go back to yesterday’s post and take time to read the comments.

 

 

A short post about some upcoming topics on this blog

3rd May 2021

Today – a bank holiday – has been taken up with dealing with an (ahem) irksome IT problem which, I am happy to now say, has been resolved.

The consequence of that problem is that it is now too late to post on the topic I was intending to post on today.

But instead of not posting at all (and I do like posting once a day if I can), I thought regular readers would like to know what is coming up – and also what I am seeking to move away from blogging about.

Upcoming are:

 – a couple of posts on the legal side of the ‘culture wars’ – premised on the basis of a previous post Suppose the government wanted a culture war and nobody came? – approaching relevant politic-cultural topics not as a combatant but as a commentator

 – a series of posts on the gaps in accountability and transparency in the conduct of the state of the United Kingdom – in respect of the Ombudsman system, the corononial system and public procurement;

 – more posts on issues relating to Black Lives Matter – including a follow-up to the Smiley Culture post and posts on other deaths in custody and whether those infamous ‘lessons’ are ever ‘learned’; and

 – the completion of my series on the Begum case (here and here), which shows the extent of sheer executive power in respect of the position of the individual.

I will also, from time to time, deal with something odd in the news – like Handforth parish council or Colin the Caterpillar – for no better reason than I think it would be amusing and instructive to look at it from a law and policy perspective.

And, of course, I will deal with any more earnest news developments if I can think of anything useful to say.

But.

I am beginning to think that there is little new to say about certain enduring subjects such as the (lack of) honesty of politicians and the limits of the constitution to address the (dire) state of our politics.

The subject remains crucially important – but averring that there are constitutional problems caused by political dishonesty and hyper-partisanship that need practically resolving is repetitive to write and, not doubt, to read.

Unless there is something fresh to say on the (absence of) practical accountability of the prime minister and related topics, I can only offer what I have said before as a given.

Many thanks to you for reading my blog – and an additional thanks to those of you who support it.

A Merry Christmas from the Law and Policy blog

Christmas Day, 2020

This wretched year nears its end.

And there probably has not been a year in the modern history of the United Kingdom – perhaps even in the history of the United Kingdom itself – which has been more eventful for law and policy.

But a highlight for me has been reviving this blog and doing a daily post, and so I thank you all for reading and supporting this blog.

A Merry Christmas you lot, and we will see each other on the other side.

(And I hear someone has delivered a ‘Deal’.)

My new “Guided Tours” at the Financial Times

11th June 2020

This blog has been quiet recently, though not through lack of law and policy material.

The main reason has been illness – nothing too serious nor covid-related – but another reason is the fast pace of recent events mean that considered responses are often quickly redundant or at least stale.

My personal Twitter account has therefore been my main means of providing commentary.

There has also, however, been another outlet for my commentary – I have now done two videos for the Financial Times (where I have the wonderful title of “contributing editor”).

I have called these videos “guided tours”.

I sit with a document (but without notes) and speak away into a mic as I go through the document.

The Financial Times’ production wizard Tom Hannen then takes the audio and then applies it to a visual tour of the document which he creates.

The intention of these “guided tour” videos is two-fold.

The first is to give an exposition of a topical document by showing the viewer the way through the document for themselves.

The second is to use that document as a way of explaining things about such documents more generally.

The first document was Dominic Cummings’ statement, which I analysed as a witness statement.

The second was the recent quarantine regulations, which I analysed as a statutory instrument.

My hope is that we can go on to do Acts of Parliament and significant court judgments.

These videos were Tom Hannen’s idea and initiative, not my own (and so he should take the credit), though I instantly realised how they could be useful devices for promoting the public understanding of law.

The videos are hosted at FT.com and also free to view on YouTube – and I have created a playlist to which you can subscribe where I will add each video.

The videos, as with any novelty, have faults but the feedback from legal professionals, trainers and teaches of law has so far been positive – though that may be partly because the videos are a novelty.

Any constructive feedback and suggestions for further videos welcome.

**

Thank you for visiting this independent law and policy blog.

Please support the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary on this blog and my Twitter account either by the Paypal box above or by becoming a Patreon subscriber.

You can also subscribe to this blog at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

**

Comments are welcome but pre-moderated, and so comments will not be published if irksome.