Received this email today, reference how the government want to abuse the HenryVIII powers. Good Law Project Hi Badger In 1539, Henry VIII gained the right to legislate by decree, enabling him to bypass Parliament altogether. And now Boris Johnson, the man who has already tried and failed to suspend Parliament, is taking further cues on democracy from a Tudor King. On leaving the EU, Henry VIII powers were originally intended to be used narrowly, to make technical changes to the statute book to ensure laws adopted inside the EU made sense outside it. We believe these narrow powers are being abused: Government says it can use them to abolish the entire state aid regime without parliamentary debate. But we think this is constitutionally offensive - and unlawful. With, as we understand it, no state aid regime in place, without the checks and controls it brings, the door is flung open for Government to provide financial aid that would favour particular industries and companies over their rivals. Given the Government’s tendency to benefit donors to the Conservative Party you may well think we need those rules. The scrapping of the state aid regime will be the tip of the iceberg. The Future Relationship Act, presented to Parliament in the dying days of 2020, contains extraordinarily broad Henry VIII powers. Ministers can now rewrite the rules on everything from your rights at work to environmental protections. In fact, it is no exaggeration to state that any area of law touched on by the EU is now within the purview of Ministers. They can even extend their own powers under the Act. The stakes could hardly be higher. We believe that the use of Henry VIII powers to scrap the state aid regime is unlawful and we have issued judicial review proceedings. Good Law Project has instructed Hausfeld LLP and leading Counsel Tim Buley QC and Yaaser Vanderman in this challenge. You can read the bundle as filed here. The Government’s actions undermine Parliament. We at Good Law Project mean, having previously orchestrated the successful challenge to Johnson’s prorogation, to stand guard. Thank you, Jolyon Maugham QC Director of Good Law Project please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
So that's the democracy the leavers voted for? Taking back control, it's now with Spaffer, his sycophantic cabinets and MPs. Let's not forget those non-elected people pulling the stings out of public scrutiny wanting their payback. Is there a petition re this usurping of parliamentary powers?
One example of a UK business relocating to the EU, in order to save his business from failing. The knock on effect is that his UK based company will be closed, presumably with job losses.
Here’s an area that has been ignored and should have received swifter action to resolve it. I have read that there are around 11 million people affected by living in homes with flammable cladding and the responsibility for paying for replacement of the cladding is being passed onto them, the leaseholders, which is just ****ing ridiculous. If you bought a car with a manufacturing defect, that endangered life, you wouldn’t be expected to pay for it to be made safe. The manufacturer would foot the bill. So why, in this case, are builders, landlords and the local authorities/governing bodies, that sanctioned the faulty cladding, not picking up the tab?
The problem I believe is that when the buildings were erected, and the leases taken out, the cladding was legal, and was only subsequently found to be unsafe. The Grenfell tragedy has brought the sheer number of unsafe buildings in this country to light, with insurance companies charging a fortune for premiums, which many leaseholders simply can’t afford, so therefore have to give up their leases. The builders and the freeholders have the law on their side, so the only way out of the vicious cycle is for the government to step in, which so far they haven’t.
Wasn’t aware that the status of the cladding had been downgraded, but doesn’t that open up another argument about where the responsibility for replacing it lies? I just think it is so unjust that the leaseholders are expected to fund the change.
it's a bit more than just replacing the cladding (costs about 30 odd k per person) but before this cladding (who is going to do all this as you need a specialist to replace it and funding and i'm not sure whether people can live in the building whilst its going on) but there is this thing called a walking watch, essentially guys who are "patrolling" the buildings to knock on your door in case a fire does break out as well as remediation of anything that is also missing like fire alarms throughout the building. This walking watch is expensive on top of the existing service charge, we are talking about an extra 2/3k per year at least per flat and for most people this is unaffordable, especially during this time of furlough. Don't pay your service charge, the bank can just take your property back. This extra charge won't change until the cladding is fixed
Yesterday, Labour argued for leaseholders and tenants to be protected from the costs and to be made safe from the dangerous homes. As you can expect, in the ensuing non binding vote, no Tory MP voted, all abstaining. I guess too many MPs are landlords and/or are associated with landlords through friendship or business, so expecting them to pile in and help tenants and leaseholders is expecting too much as it would hit them in their bank balance. 3 plus years and the Grenfell issue hasn’t been resolved satisfactorily, yet it took Jenrick (iirc) just 24 hours to try to change a rule to help one of his acquaintances save millions of pounds. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...BwnKI_MBiHl9LeWjEEr7NoPQ2WvmMWm4V2S1J-XuhmcKQ
Another Brexit success. 15 million bees might be burnt under new laws banning their importation. https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-02...1ViXbjpJvjkXArFBslQdtciSV1UHHlgalRzk_VFpJbqkw
On the subject of Tory landlords, Transport Secretary and one time Housing Secretary Grant Schapps, owns over 40 former council flats in Westminster. Bit of prime real estate fell his way there from a former Tory carve up of public assets; wonder if he knows Dido Harding?
i think the abstaining is to follow party politics. If the Tory MPs are a landlord of said flat, they will be the leaseholder and the one liable for it. They maybe taking their time over this until the next general election as this will definitely lose them loads of votes and maybe they are hoping to save this ace card for later? i don't know. Whatever happens, this is going to cost someone somewhere a lot of money. The only thing i can say is that the government are typically on the side of big business so i don't expect any of these developers to get any grief for building substandard buildings (some were within guidelines at the time, some are not)
This speaks for itself, please help out if you can: Good Law Project Hi Chilcs Tomorrow sees our legal challenge for Government’s failure to disclose details of COVID-19-related contracts. The case is being brought by Good Law Project along with a cross-party group of MPs - Caroline Lucas (Green), Debbie Abrahams (Labour) and Layla Moran (LibDem). Ahead of the hearing, Government has disclosed how much public money it has spent defending its conduct. It makes for an eye-watering read. Government has used a huge legal team - nine solicitors and five barristers - to prepare for a one day hearing with just one witness. And its costs stand at a staggering £207,784. A private litigant doesn’t have the bulk purchasing power of the state and its costs are often higher. But Good Law Project’s costs stand at just £81,854. And that £207,784 has been spent defending what Government has explicitly admitted to being persistent and unlawful conduct. We have managed, with your help, to crowdfund £100,466. But you don’t need a maths degree to see the problem. Given the continuing super-sized costs bills it’s hard not to wonder whether there is a correlation between how politically sensitive a legal challenge is and how much Government spends. In our judicial review over the award of huge PPE contracts to weird counterparties, it has estimated its costs at an enormous £1million. This is a sum unprecedented in our lawyers’ experience of judicial review proceedings. It would be hugely worrying if Government was incurring huge costs to try and scare off legitimate public interests challenges. If you are in a position to donate to the legal challenge over Government’s failure to come clean on COVID-19 contracts, you can do so here: crowdjustice.com/case/fight-for-transparency/ As our lawyers state in the skeleton argument, it was only when we and our fellow co-claimants began to highlight Government’s unlawful failure to publish COVID-19-related contracts that senior officials began to seek to rectify the situation. Our legal pressure is working and we do not intend to back down now. Thank you, Jolyon Maugham QC Director of Good Law Project Good Law Project is able to carry out its work thanks to donations from thousands of people. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here: Donate 3 East Point High Street Seal Sevenoaks, TN15 0EG United Kingdom Privacy Policy Unsubscribe
Zarah Sultana has become my favourite MP. I love how she is prepared to tell it how it is. Read the text for her views on lobbying.
Hopefully this has legs, with Tory MPs apparently rebelling against Johnson re cladding and who should pay for it. Also an interesting comment towards the bottom about how the Tories think Starmer is doing a good job for the Tories, and think he will not be leader in 18 months time. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...VUK3_g5-hDBn3SJ5SQUJofo4Unb9pO47ddyEptK35uwo4
Email from the Good Law Project, re their case against the government. It appears that the government’s defence is that the Good Law Project doesn’t have “Standing” so they shouldn’t be bringing this case to court as they are not directly affected by the decisions made by the government. Weasel words to escape being held to account, as the email explains. Good Law Project Hi Badger On Wednesday, in open court, lawyers acting on behalf of Government admitted it had breached the law by persistently failing to publish details of COVID-19 contracts. Not only were they knowingly in breach of the law, but explosive emails read to the High Court reveal that Number 10 asked civil servants to delay publishing PPE contracts even further in order to suit their news agenda. Government openly breaching the law for their own political expediency may no longer surprise us, but it is a worrying sign indeed for our democracy. As our legal team took Government to task for its ‘wholesale failure to comply with obligations of transparency’ it became evident that no one, including Government’s own witness, seemed to know who was responsible for ensuring legal obligations were met. Indeed, Government only sought to rectify the situation after Good Law Project and cross-party MPs Caroline Lucas, Debbie Abrahams, and Layla Moran initiated legal proceedings. Without our judicial review, who knows how many contracts would still remain unpublished. As Government has admitted breaching the law, its chosen line of defence is that we do not have ‘standing’ to bring this judicial review. Standing is the legal stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles them to bring a legal challenge. Government argues that only ‘economic operators’ have standing to bring this case. In other words, businesses who lost out because of Government’s breach of the law. But what business would speak out, given fear of future reprisals and loss of earnings? And what about the standing of those of us who believe scrutiny of public spending is vital to hold Government to account and keep those in power honest? We believe that the decision in this case may ultimately rest on the issue of standing and we hope to have the judgement soon. A full summary of the hearing can be found here and we will update you on the judgement as soon as we receive it. Thank you for your support of this legal challenge. Thank you, Jolyon Maugham QC Director of Good Law Project please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
