Starmer’s ‘rule of lawyers’ is sidelining Parliament
- Starmer’s repeal of Troubles legislation will allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation
- The idea sovereignty lies in Parliament, not the courts, is anathema to Keir Starmer
- Labour are elevating legal institutions above the decisions of politicians
Not an unfamiliar debacle, Starmer has quite a collection of debacles already, but the whole piece is well worth reading.
The Prime Minister is a void: a late middle-aged man of conventional, soft-left opinions, who thought that being our premier might be an entertaining late-stage career change. He doesn’t really understand economics and growth. He has no experience in foreign policy. But he really, really cares about human rights law.
Starmer has been an MP for under a decade, but has been studying and practicing law since the 1980s. His instinct in a dispute between Parliament and the courts is to assume that the latter is in the right. Having been wowed by the European Convention on Human Rights as a student, his view of human rights is naturally expansive – a decision best encapsulated by his appointment of Richard Hermer as Attorney General.
Hermer is a long-time friend and mentee of Starmer: the Plato to his Socrates, the Harrison to his McCartney, the Lewis to his Morse. Both were early human rights law specialists, with Hermer taking a particular interest in international law. As Yuan Yi Zhu outlines, the pair share a ‘thick’ conception of the rule of law, treating it as a wide-ranging set of liberal values that check Parliament’s authority.
6 comments:
Possibly Blair started this with Derry Irvine? Sodd principles and morals, parachuting mates into prominent, decision making, positions is what counts. In my mind, Starmer is as much of a traitor to the UK as Blair was.I
Penseivat
Yes, very good.
I still maintain, though, that his rationalism and commitment to universalist rules is sham. Why else would he pronounce white working class rioters guilty before their trials, and accuse people of jumping on bandwagons when the most famous picture of him is him taking the knee?
The two most intriguing points here are
1. His claim that he doesn't want Adams to get the compo. How is he going to get out of this one?
2. The very striking truth that being a human rights lawyer amounts to nothing unless he has other skills. Like furthering economic growth, fostering good international relations, and being self-aware.
He's untrustworthy, disliked by many, and on his own manic crusade which will certainly bite him in the arse when the May elections are counted.
Local councils will be changing colour in droves, and the last thing they want is to piddle about with 'huming roights', on their meagre budgets spewed out by his unqualified minions.
Penseivat - you may be right, so far he's shaping up to be as much of a traitor to the UK as Blair. Being shown up as a fool doesn't seem to bother him either.
Sam - he may be lying about not wanting Adams to get the compo, but we'll probably never know whatever he says.
Yes, the human rights lawyer with no other skills is very striking and it fits him very well. He doesn't seem to know about his lack of skills either, which suggests that in spite of his demeanour he is conceited enough to ignore that. Maybe his mother adored him and his legal success, or maybe he was always weird.
Scrobs - yes, untrustworthy and disliked by many, including people in his own party. The sooner he is gone the better.
I have wondered how Sir Keir Incompetent has managed to get not one, but two important positions. Then I remembered I have come across this before. I know of several people who have been promoted way past their competency level by knowing the right buzzwords to use in promotion boards.
John - yes and I bet the number of people promoted way past their ability is much larger than it should be. Above a certain level it doesn't seem to matter because as you say, knowing the right buzzwords is enough.
Post a Comment