Yes, that’s true but the 2019 election is really difficult to read because there were some large factors that defied the traditional party lines; Brexit being chief among them. As such, I think that it is impossible to say to what extent people were voting for Johnson and the Conservatives rather than against Corbyn or the risk of undermining the Brexit vote. That’s very much underscored by the fall of the ‘red wall’. Johnson was right to describe those votes as having been ‘lent’ to the Conservatives. I do not think that support will outlast an election cycle, particularly not with what has happened since, but even without it I think it was only ever one of short-term expediency.
4 Likes
The story links to this one too.
In a statement, the department of health and social care said: “The judgement is clear that all claims raised by the Good Law Project were dismissed and the ruling itself stated their claim ‘fails in its entirety’.”
Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for Mr Hancock highlighted the fact the claims of “apparent bias” and “indirect discrimination” had been thrown out and that the claims brought by the Good Law Project had “failed”, adding “this group continues to waste the court’s time”.
Hancock’s a pillock but he’s not wrong about these grifters.
[It should be noted that the Good Law Project and the Runnymede Trust were ordered to pay 80% of the government’s costs, put in the region of £360,000.
As Maugham puts it…
We indemnified the Runnymede Trust against this risk to enable them to participate in the litigation and Good Law Project will meet these costs, using the funds you have so generously donated.
So funders of the GLP paid approximately half a million to lawyers for this latest failure. Maugham’s got such a wonderful thing going here.]
They might be grifters but they’re making very valid points about governance…
I remember some of the government’s activities here being considered unlawful by the court some time ago so the GLP were unable to make that stick and push it further.
So that makes me question whether this is down to poor " lawyering" or is there really nothing to see here. The latter is extremely difficult to swallow given what we know of pest control firms being given contracts, proper suppliers ignored, pub landlords, Tory donors from Europe and the fast lane system etc.
Corbyn had a 16% approval rating before the election. The British were never going to elect an unreconstructed Marxist with a history of supporting terrorists. Brexit or no Brexit.
2 Likes
It can be neither.
I was involved in a high court case were we had the best lawyers, the other side got caught red handed, and we still lost.
The judge was one of the smartest guys I ever met. Judgments not always rational. Apply different standards for the balance of probabilities, against common sense.
1 Like
I’ve been fairly consistent in my view that a lot of the claims brought by The Good Law Project have very little merit or prospects of success. In my view, they are on the verge of being scams. Virtue-signalling lawyers tapping into a very accessible well of public anger (more often than not stoked by politicised social media fume) to fund their grandstanding.
It’s very little to do with strong legal merits. The Good Law Project loses the vast majority of its challenges and even where it claims victory I’ve only ever seen it be partially successful, always only on one of the smaller grounds.
I’m not saying that JR of government conduct should not happen, it absolutely should, but where you’re crowdfunded the situation needs to be properly set out, including a genuine assessment as to likely prospects. That would encourage organisations like The Good Law Project to be more discerning in the challenges they make and allow the public to make more informed and judicious decisions with regard to what to do with their money.
Currently most of the funds are just going to government lawyers and they’re not getting much ROI.
3 Likes
That may be the case, but they do raise awareness of significant issues, e.g. the latest fiasco of governance by Whatsapp/Signal.
2 Likes
That sounds incredibly harsh and I assume lead to an awkward conversation with your client.
Your story, City and CAS, Johnson and party gate and the cronyism thing doesn’t exactly fill me with much faith in the system. Even the Prince Andrew allegations.
Any idea where they’re going wrong? The reported stuff is pretty damning but obviously is unlikely to know all the details
They (the GLP) just repeatedly overstate issues, making them seem more egregious than they are, or even insinuating wrongdoing where there isn’t any. I mean, they have to encourage donations, right?
That’s not to say that there aren’t serious issues that deserve scrutiny but if they just focused on those then they wouldn’t be as busy, would they?
A lot of it is opportunism and monetising public anger that they have helped to inflame.
I also think that they (GLP) fail to appreciate that the Courts won’t generally hold public bodies to the precise letter of the law. They understand that they operate in difficult circumstances and will make allowances providing the body is taking reasonable steps. For many public decision-making the Courts will apply a reasonableness test known as Wednesbury, which gives a fair amount of discretion to the individual decision-maker.
The one claim they brought during the pandemic that I was particularly interested in was the waste of public funds and corruption allegations. I don’t know if that’s been heard yet? If it has I don’t recall the outcome which probably means it didn’t go in GLP’s favour…happy to be enlightened if anyone knows?
3 Likes
Yes I was the expert witness for my company.
Because the judge took pity on the other side, and didnt enforce the law/contracts. Unfortunitly It lead to a perception that IP could not be protected within the UK. The end result was 100 scientists lost their jobs. The judge was not to know that would be an outcome. But it certainly did colour my perceptions of the law and whats right and wrong.
1 Like
Did you write to the Justice afterwards and point out the consequences of his stupidity? May help him realise that he shouldn’t be getting so shitfaced on the job nor remaining so ignorant about the commercial and scientific world. The cunt.
Also were there no grounds to appeal to Supreme Court?
Says a lot that there isn’t more discussion of this here. Are people simply resigned to the fact that they will continue to be shafted by this government?
1 Like
Yeah, isn’t it weird? The biggest fall in living standards in our lifetimes and no one comments.
It may be simply too much to take in.
1 Like
@Kopstar may be along shortly to claim that it’s not the fault of Brexit or the Tory government(s)?
3 Likes
But is the fault of the GLP 
You’ve got me. I’m constantly having to point out things like global pandemics and biggest war in Europe for over 70 years.
The UK is by no means alone from suffering from a cost of living crisis. Those other countries can’t all have Tory governments and have left the EU, can they?
2 Likes