Categories
Options
Why This Fight? Why Now? – politicalbetting.com
Why This Fight? Why Now? – politicalbetting.com
It is quite something for a government to challenge via judicial review the use of legal powers exercised by an inquiry it set up, run by a judge it appointed, with terms of reference it drafted.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's making Boris Johnson look honest and straightforward for one.
I don't think whichever beak sees their arguments is going to have much truck with them frankly.
It could be as simple as Sunak being on record as saying he didn't care how many people died, so long as the economy got back on track.
Amazingly, this time that someone isn’t Boris Johnson.
david allen green
@davidallengreen
Be careful about the exact wording Johnson is using before you get too excited.
Eg, the impressively deft use of "relevant" in the seventh paragraph - so well camouflaged you may miss it.
I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.
And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.
Of course he isn't. That's taken as read, surely?
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.
I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.
I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.
If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.
We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants.
2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants.
3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101.
IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow! That’s the ministers and the permanent secretaries.
So it must be dire.
Those dealing with the emergency had to balance the health issue against the economic issue, and one can well imagine the Chancellor playing the devil’s advocate with regard to many of the restrictions.
The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.
Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).
The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.
A colleague of mine was tracked down on Facebook by a former student who left a lovely message saying how much they appreciated everything they'd done for them.
The school's response? Delete it, don't acknowledge, and block them. Redouble privacy settings. Any further contact would be a disciplinary matter.
My colleague pointed out they run into each other almost every week in Asda anyway.
Sight flaw in your strategy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-september-lockdown-b1825193.html
Much of it might indeed come across as crass and insensitive, which is one reason why we don't habitually see such things as it is hardly fair to pillory people for such, but general rules are set aside for an inquiry - by its nature we don't usually hold such things, so it is not business as usual.
And of course this is the problem with the government's stance - I'm sure it would say it wouldn't remove stuff solely because it is potentially embarrassing, but how can anyone know that is true? Governments hide embarrassing stuff all the time, they're telling me they wouldn't dare cover up even one little bit of embarrassment amongst the 'sensitive' materials? Come off it.
If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.
Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.
Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.
This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.
Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.
He doesn't care if he destroys the Tory Party at this point.
It's been rapid, coming from 106 balls, and he has barely given a chance.
Lord's stands for him as he removes his helmet and soaks up the applause, rightfully delighted. An utterly dominant innings.
These two genuinely look as if they could bat all day.
From BBC, incredible run rate, did they forget they were playing a test match?
And I agree about the likely outcome of the inquiry - most people, politicians and the media for all inquiries want to find something to blame individuals to fit preconceived opinions (we see this when angry relatives or whoever find marginal connections from a proposed chair of an inquiry and demand replacement, because they want X to be blamed and think that person won't do that), and so whatever the inquiry itself states that is what most people will remember from it, or it will be so bland to be pointless.
Ireland probably not really Test standard, but let's be fair not much is played and very few outside England care about Tests, so it hardly matters.
There was that time Ireland bowled England out for 85, that was amusing. Still ost by 143 runs.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ireland-tour-of-england-2019-1152835/england-vs-ireland-only-test-1152839/full-scorecard
So he wants the Tories to go 3-0 down, rather than lose the match. Obviously being 3-0 down increases the chance of the loss but the plan is a Boris PM GE win in 24 rather than a Tory loss.
The remit of this inquiry is truly massive and doesn’t just cover what the leaders at the very top did but how HMRC managed COVID relief schemes, law enforcement policy, procurement across multiple government departments etc.
I’ve seen a tiny part of the prep for this inquiry and even in my tiny area it’s taking a massive amount of time to identify documents for submission and to propose redactions for sensitive information within them (such as individual data and commercially sensitive information).
Added to that is the issue that the inquiry will publish the original documents of any submissions so you’re going to get a whole page of information on, for example, a department’s IT security policy for the sake of a few paragraphs of minutes related to COVID. This won’t be redacted as it’s not sensitive but it’s also not information that you particularly want to share.
As someone who is marginally involved in this I dread the amount of work if the inquiry decides it not only wants to see documents from my department that specifically discusses COVID but all documents in that period.
Having said the above the government could have handled this specific issue better. It could have offered the inquiry Chair a secure reading room to see any documents she wishes or agreed to release these papers on the understanding that this doesn’t set a precedent.
And that makes me feel really uneasy.
There are problems either way, but for me the risk of the government abusing its power to withhold, or doing so in error and missing something crucial (the odds of that happening is north of 90% I'd say, if including error) is a greater threat to the purpose of the inquiry than the already present risk of there being a leak (since anything held might be leaked by the people already holding it) being a risk to that information.
If they didn't want this they should have set up various mini inquiries being more targeted, where the sifting of material would be an inevitability.
I'd expect Ireland to take it into a third day, but not a fourth.
Somebody in the chats must have had a huge rant about Captain Tom, I'm calling it now
https://twitter.com/agkd123/status/1664315151523237888?s=46
Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-pakistan-2022-23-1330866/pakistan-vs-england-1st-test-1330871/full-scorecard
If you want something to remain confidential then you need a face-to-face conversation.
Even then you have to be careful who you trust.
Long may it prosper.
https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/
“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.
I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”
When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?
Either way, it doesn't help Sunak and the gov
The government drew up the terms of reference. If it wanted a narrower, shorter, more focused inquiry it could have got one. Instead, it over-promised and is now seeking to under-deliver.
Note also the biting irony of a government, determined to limit the scope of judicial review, resorting to ... judicial review. In an attempt to circumvent a power determined by statute.
The government derives its power from Parliament, and only from Pariament. If it wishes to change the law, it should do so through Parliament.
The Act, as Cyclefree remarks, is quite clear:
(4)A claim by a person that—
(a)he is unable to comply with a notice under this section, or
(b)it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require him to comply with such a notice,
is to be determined by the chairman of the inquiry, who may revoke or vary the notice on that ground.
(5)In deciding whether to revoke or vary a notice on the ground mentioned in subsection (4)(b), the chairman must consider the public interest in the information in question being obtained by the inquiry, having regard to the likely importance of the information..
The header is quite right. This is a matter of extremely important principle, irrespective of the petty details of ministers' WhatsApp messages.
The video shows smoke rising in the port of Berdiansk at noon today.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1664595788972867585
AN AIRFORCE DRONE OPTIMISED FOR POINTS WENT ROGUE AND KILLED OPERATOR!: a thousand retweets
“In a simulation” - 100 retweets
“In a paper ‘what if” scenario brainstormed around a desk*” - 10 retweets
https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1664571000917315586
*As are most decisions to go to war, TBF.
I'm sure there's some skulduggery lying beneath it but I am so bored of Boris Johnson, Covid, lockdown and WhatsApp chats.
I hope the right thing is done, of course, but there are a million other things we should be talking about and I have next to no interest in this one.