rajivshah.bsky.social
Interested in law, politics, the constitution, and policy. Former special adviser in MOJ, AGO, and No 10.
@RajivShah90 at the other place
138 posts
707 followers
361 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
By that logic, though, you should also oppose clause 4(1) and let Montgomery apply in full?
comment in response to
post
Great piece, thank you for sharing
comment in response to
post
The justifications for it were quite different from the ones (initially) advanced by the new govt. In particular I was very surprised to see legal considerations feature so prominently in the Labour's govt justification for it
Starmer recently shifted in talking about national security
comment in response to
post
Having been involved on this issue in previous govt, I don't think that describes the thinking/reasoning of the previous Tory PMs
comment in response to
post
I try to read London, Brussels and Paris. There's a noticeable difference in tone though not as much as one might think
comment in response to
post
You also say that wanting to avoid agonising deaths and not wanting medical/care costs to eat up inheritance are excluded from the debate but the discussion on the amendments on pain and not being a burden did bring those issues out (albeit still within the limitation of terminal illness)
comment in response to
post
For many of those amendments, proponents of the Bill recognised that they were reasonable/in good faith. I'm unclear based on your column what you think opponents should have done instead? (amendments that are inconsistent with what was voted on at 2R are out of order)
comment in response to
post
So far the amendments proposed and discussed have been about a higher test of capacity, stronger protection from coercive behaviour (undue influence, encouragement), seeking to protect people who feel they are a burden, a requirement of pain to be eligible, exclusion of prisoners/homeless
comment in response to
post
Hi Stephen, given (as KL keeps reminding everyone) that the purpose of Committee is not to relitigate the second reading debate, what do you suggest opponents of the Bill (not all of whom are in principle opposed) do?
comment in response to
post
It would have been better to wait 6 months, consult his cabinet colleagues before changing the guidance
comment in response to
post
Yes I think it's definitely possible that Hermer is being a lightning rod for the fact that governing is hard
But I do think the change in tone and guidance is not helping (when reading his speeches one could be forgiven for thinking Suella rather than Victoria was his predecessor)
comment in response to
post
I discuss this towards the end here: www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/labo...
comment in response to
post
Fwiw I think the big issue is not so much what gets told to Ministers but the fact that policy ideas don't get presented to ministers because they are thought to be too legally risky
Almost every policy civil servant I've spoken to in Whitehall had a story about that
comment in response to
post
"there is sometimes a political benefit to fighting and losing"
I'm old enough to remember the condemnation of the previous govt when we were accused of doing that (seeing a loss in JR as politically beneficial)
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/07/28/j...
(Fwiw I don't think the article was right)
comment in response to
post
Amendments not proposed amendments
You think there's a realistic possibility the Committee would not vote in favour of the amendments moved by Kim Leadbeater?
comment in response to
post
Yes they still have to be voted on but the term prior to them being voted on is 'amendment' not 'proposed amendment'
comment in response to
post
(Great piece btw)
comment in response to
post
So I don't think the explanation is anything to do with Ireland specifically, but is instead a widespread (and cross party) acceptance of non British (but still English speaking) people taking part in British politics/govt/media
comment in response to
post
On this, for a good chunk of the time I was a spad I wasn't a British citizen, and I had other colleagues who were in the same boat. More generally there are a fair few other Commonwealth/Irish in SW1
I still find it remarkable that it is a fact that no one commented on
comment in response to
post
It's a bit like calling the Tribunals "Court of Appeal Plus" on the basis that the Senior President of Tribunals is a Court of Appeal judge
The High Court was a key component of getting it through second reading. It's shameful to drop it now
comment in response to
post
If the High Court judge was sitting in a panel with a social worker and psychiatrists, then one could call it "Judge Plus"
But this is not it. The High Court judge will not review any application, a panel that does not include a judge will.
"Judge Plus" is deeply misleading
comment in response to
post
Yes indeed, but the point I was drawing out is that in an instance (i) AG has opined and (ii) GLD lawyer feels AG is very deeply wrong, then GLD lawyer cannot disregard the view of AG and fail to act on it
Happily this situation happens very rarely in our system (Wilmshurst on Iraq comes to mind)
comment in response to
post
Though a point of difference between our system and the US is that GLD lawyers do not sign legal submissions in their own name, whereas I gather in DOJ they do. And maybe in that regard the better UK analogy is panel counsel
comment in response to
post
Do you think there's a distinction between internal and external lawyers? Eg in our system the AG's legal view binds the whole of GLD. And a GLD lawyer who disagrees with that view cannot refuse to put it into effect (though they can if course resign as Elizabeth Wilmshurst did)
comment in response to
post
The vote at 3R is a vote on the whole Bill, not on particular amendments.
At Report stage, there is no automatic vote on the amendments made at Committee.
Amendments can be tabled to remove them, but there's only time for about 4 votes at Report, so there's unlikely to be time
comment in response to
post
Slightly less radical proposal: planning authorities should be given the total discretion to disregard duties to consider. But that's less good as they would still need to identify the ones they want to bin and make a conscious decision (with paper trail etc) to disregard them