Skip to main content

Constituency vs National Issues

I tend to concentrate on national issues on this blog. That is because readers are overwhelmingly not from Yardley. Over the summer recess, however, I think I will get together some pictures of constituency issues and put them on the blog. I am particularly pleased with a play area we had installed on the Hob Moor Road side of Oaklands Park. This is continually full of 3-10 year olds and a major success.

Politics IMHO is about "delivery". Politicians are elected to deliver. This applies whether "in power" or "out of power". Obviously with us in the joint administration in Birmingham that makes it easier to deliver than when out of administration.


a) Just because you are in administration does not mean that you can deliver
b) When you are out of the administration it remains possible to deliver.

Frequently ignored by the media and hence by most people is the interface between politicians and the machine of government. One of Tony Blair's big problems is that his administration when elected did not understand this interface. They inherited a Thatcherite influenced civil service and it was "business as usual".

It continues, therefore, to be the case that often it is the civil servants that need to be persuaded of a case rather than the politicians. Yes Minister has a substantial link to reality in that way.

This is actually not the way the system is supposed to work. It is, however, how it does work. I was talking to a trade unionist on Friday at the 7/7 commemoration who reported a conversation where he was told that persuading a Minister was a waste of time (this was on PFI).

Obviously this is a matter of balance. Ministers cannot deal with 100% of the issues and at the same time no Minister has zero ability to influence the actions of the administration.

Opposition politicians tend to be ignored by government wherever possible. The failure to answer questions is the key element to this. It is in fact this difficulty that causes our system of government nationally to be so dysfunctional.

For example the issue that will hit the fan for the NHS is "gamesmanship" from the Hospital Trusts whereby a short admission from A&E substantially increases their fees charged under PbA (aka PbR). The system is very financially fragile at the moment and this sort of thing can tip it into meltdown. I am expecting to see those sort of figures at around Period 6 (ie end September). Those figures, however, are unlikely to be revealed until 2007.

The key point about the Judicial Review is that the government cannot simply ignore it. If instructed by the courts to take certain action then they have no choice. This is the key thing about the "Rule of Law".

I spoke to the Administrative Court Office and they are running slightly behind. I may ask for some speeding up because of the urgency of some of the issues. Otherwise the permission stage may take until September to be resolved.

The fact that the Treasury Solicitors are talking about having a hearing for directions makes me believe that they understand that this will get through the permission stage. The TSols know, however, that I cannot take on the risk of taking this through to the House of Lords without some limit on costs. I have done all the main legal work myself, but it is the government costs that are the killer.

Last week I watched the start of a case in the House of Lords. It is quite interesting and I managed to fit this in before the Carers APPG. I need to learn court procedures because although I think I understand the law I have only taken two JR's through to court before and I am not that used to court procedures.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…