The judges appear to have decided that the Home Office has the power to modify acts of parliament by publishing internal guidance.
That two prime ministers of such different characters, in different parties and under different circumstances, can face such similar situations may indicate that this state of affairs has more to do with our political system than their specific weaknesses.
Part of the answer can be ministers who do more of the detail and take more daily interest in the implementation and management of policy.
Henry Hill joins CapX’s podcast, The Capitalist, to discuss how and why the Starmer Government has reached its current abominable pass.
The prospect of a hung parliament invites hard questions which the Liberal Democrats have avoided for too long – and any answer will alienate some of their voters.
Defenders of the status quo on international law ought, you would think, to avoid making agreements which exacerbate the tension between that system and national democracy.
Voluntary planning consultations and hearings are systematically unrepresentative. Participants are disproportionately older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners, and far more hostile to new housing than the communities they claim to represent.
If it is in part judges taking a more expansive interpretation of their rights and responsibilities, that itself is downstream of politicians legislating in such a way as gives them more freedom to do so.
There are always temptations for oppositions to back measures which make it harder for governments to do things. Yet such tactics must be treated with great care.
The whole point of the Convention is that it elevates certain rights above the political realm. There is an inherent tension between such an arrangement and democracy.
Cabinet members in the US and Singapore can command far better pay elsewhere. But they are freed up to take on real responsibility. If the UK can’t offer similar paths to the country’s brightest, it condemns itself to mid-table mediocrity.
A Vice President came to Newcastle to remind us that a constitutional order survives only when those entrusted with it are willing to defend it without hesitation or apology. It is that same clarity of purpose that Britain must now rediscover.
The Conservatives are responding after our general election loss by listening and acting on people’s concerns. Labour should try doing it before they lose power in May.
Rachel Reeves may have made an honest mistake, but that has not previously prevented her from calling for others’ resignations.
It reflects British legal traditions more than foreign ones, and it stands as insurance against the very sort of authoritarian or socialist government Conservatives most fear.