
The China genocide amendment. Our politicians should decide our trade policy – not our judges.
There’s a case for empowering our courts to make a genocide ruling over the Uighars. But not for giving them a veto on trade deals in doing so.
There’s a case for empowering our courts to make a genocide ruling over the Uighars. But not for giving them a veto on trade deals in doing so.
Repeal will to restore politics – and the electorate – to its rightful place at the core of the United Kingdom’s constitution.
The first of a ConHome series this week on Boris Johnson’s Reset Moment – and what should follow from it.
We estimate that streamlining the quango state could mean nearly 34,000 people off the taxpayer payroll, and a saving of £3.25 billion a year.
If the BBC wants to balance its coverage of the culture war, it should commission this Oxford ethicist to tell the truth about Britain’s past.
It was promised “in our first year”. Instead, there will be mini-commissions, and a push to reform a Government bugbear: judicial review.
The decision illustrates how previous parliaments have freighted the process of policy-making with an increasingly onerous lattice of ill-defined obligations.
If there’s one thing which ought to unite even the most passionate partisans of the different proposals, it’s the abject state of British decision-making on infrastructure.
Plus: Will Javid come back? Will Boris Island fly? Hazzer, formerly the Duke of Sussex. And: an ice bath in a Scandi forest.
If governments are going to keep signing up to ‘legally-binding targets’, this sort of thing will continue to happen. Legislative indolence is the root of judicial power.
The latter will make much of the Government’s Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission – promised in the Conservative Manifesto.
Tightening the definition of a “hate incident” would help. Our new Attorney General has a lot of work to do if public confidence is to be restored.
We cheer the mission. But government needs more compromise, art, tact and accomodation than campaigning alone allows.
For many lawyers and commentators, its ruling was an assertion of judicial power that cannot be justified by constitutional law or principle.
The political has been captured by the legal. Decisions of an executive, legislative and democratic nature have been assumed by our courts.