Public Sector Lawyer

Not quite how I would put it myself, but I understand the sentiment.

Given the raft of Conservatives policies & attitudes on display at the moment, might some Conservative MPs be tempted to defect to the Lib Dems in vulnerable seats?
bsky.app/profile/chad...

A reminder of the oath that Robert Jenrick would have to swear if he ever moved from Shadow to actual Lord Chancellor.

Warning about the dilution of the Sentencing Council’s powers, & condoning the idea of ‘two-tier justice’, 6 months ago. If you normalize this sort of thing, it becomes harder to argue against the extreme authoritarian proposals by Robert Jenrick now.

bsky.app/profile/publ...

Not just working on it: many are here to stay.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/mel-...

I wonder what happened on or after 2016 that may help explain this?

conservativehome.com/2025/10/06/m...

Our reaction to Mel Stride’s big day at the Tory conference

There are savings to be made in the civil service. But an arbitrary headcount target & ignoring new demands on the state won’t deliver them

The hard work of doing that falls to the govt

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/mel-...

The GFA issue is a good example of the dishonesty of framing this as a decision that needed to be determined by legal advice.

Even if (a big if) the advice is correct, it doesn't much matter if the Irish disagree, which they're likely to. It would be a matter for politics & diplomacy to resolve.

Hybrid | CLP - Bureaucracy and Distrust: The Civil Service in the Constitution This lecture will be delivered by Dr Ben Yong, as part of the Current Legal Problems Lecture Series 2025-26

I‘m giving a public talk at UCL on Thurs 16 Oct. The title is “Bureaucracy and distrust: the civil service in the constitution” looking at the civil service’s constitutional foundations, and how it might respond to a populist govt. @sirJJkc.bsky.social will chair!
www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/...

UK government undermined China spying probe to protect Beijing ties, say officials Prosecution case collapsed after senior security advisers said they would not testify that China was an ‘enemy’

If correct, then, even if valid reasons not to cite China as an "enemy", why did the Government allow the case to be prosecuted?

The continuing refusal of Jonathan Powell even to appear before Parliament (citing exemption as a spad) also makes this look worse.
www.ft.com/content/0aa1...

I think there though the decision wasn’t “let’s ask the lawyers & we’ll do what they say”, but the more conventional “we want to do this, please confirm whether it’s lawful”. KB here was explicitly outsourcing the decision to a lawyer (at least claiming to do so).

In fact there’s quite a bit of politics in here, not just legal advice, & the suspicion must be that it’s legal window-dressing for a decision already made. But the framing is still interesting (particularly for a party no longer that keen on lawyers).

Are there any other examples of political parties making major policy decisions specifically (at least ostensibly) *because of* legal advice?

This isn’t framed as a policy review that happens to have been undertaken by a lawyer, but actual (privileged) advice, albeit made public.

Wolfson Final Report | Conservatives Wolfson Final Report

Here’s the Wolfson Report recommending the UK leaves the ECHR

www.conservatives.com/wolfson-fina...

Take a shot every time Policy Exchange is cited as authority for a dubious legal proposition and you’ll be drunk before the end of the first chapter

I can understand this to an extent, including the strength of feeling. What I struggle with is the view that not just an extreme element (‘eg ‘woke’ academia) but everyone who’s vaguely left/liberal has shifted too. So that eg someone along the lines of David Gauke is perceived to be radicalised.

I think as far as those on the right are concerned, it’s the left & liberals who’ve become most radicalised, & it’s more of a cultural than a policy thing (as per the meme)?

But helpful to have someone who may be sympathetic to that argument eg @igmansfield.bsky.social to explain.

Yes. I am speculating here - I don’t know whether they intend for the document to remain private or not, & if not why not - but it does seem odd that it’s specifically referred to as ‘legal advice’.

I mean legally privileged. I’m just wondering why the full text hasn’t (apparently) been made public.

Thanks.

Interesting to me it’s referred to as legal advice (to whom specifically? the Shadow Cabinet?).

The public policy shift seems to turn on it, yet maybe the full text is privileged so it won’t be shared.

Is the full text available somewhere?

I see it’s described as ‘legal advice’, although excerpts have been shared.

I suspect it’s tied to another misunderstanding about historical views on remaining in the EU. An assumption there was a slight soft majority for staying, which melted away during the campaign, & that views on the ECnHR will be similar. Not true at all.

bsky.app/profile/publ...

There does seem to be a misunderstanding about public views on the ECnHR, among politicians & media folk (is a partly an X thing?).

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law? | Institute for Government The government plans to remain in the ECHR but change how it is interpreted.

My thoughts on what Keir Starmer might mean by “looking again” at international law (including the ECHR) in the context of migration, how that might be done and whether it would work www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

No, I don't think there'd be many takers for another referendum. I'm just trying to think of all possible options of a way out.

Another possibility is they keep putting it off till there's a financial crisis, & claim then that their hand has been forced. Politically not the best option.

The argument then really is: not whether, but to what extent, & how, are we going to break our manifesto commitments further, in the letter &/or the spirit?

Unless there's an alternative? Admit they've made a catastrophic error, & call a snap election? Or a referendum?

It's a terrible bind they've got themselves in, but what are the options? The argument here is to cut spending. But that risks breaking other manifesto commitments, or at least the spirit of them. And they've already broken the tax pledge once (in letter & spirit).
www.ft.com/content/0a00...

Kemi Badenoch mistakenly says NI voted in favour of Brexit In a BBC NI interview, the Tory leader said the

The funniest bit of this is the ironically lazy framing ‘the last time I checked’, reminiscent of Theresa May’s ‘I’m not making this up’ about the cat, or Boris Johnson starting a sentence with ‘frankly’.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Even more ambitious than the previous pledges.

The grown-ups are back!

on.ft.com/3WkEush “Shadow chancellor underlines Tory commitment to ‘fiscal responsibility’”