Yes it is, but Starmer, Lammy and Sackman don’t have to convince the voters; like much else (including assisted dying) this wasn’t in the manifesto. They only have to convince the lumpen proletariat that is Labour MPs. It appears from watching last night‘s Newsnight that the argument that this will help survivors of sexual violence has landed well with female MPs, and thus the Bill will sail through 2nd reading.
But like assisted dying, I suspect it will run into considerable opposition in the Lords - and similar arguments about the right of the second chamber to block legislation that was not in the manifesto will arise (even though this is a government Bill).
But either way, and as Sonia concludes, does Starmer really want to be remembered as the PM who rammed through the curtailment of trial by jury?
I had been conflicted about this proposal but this article makes it very clear. The system had already been nudged in 2022 so changing again is unjustified, and more so the contradiction inherent that another "small" nudge will make a big change in efficiency is implausible. Then the shifting of the argument from removing backlogs to a principal basis of improving judgement quality...well they should have made that argument at the start if they believed it, my experience of this type of shifting is it is generally disingenuous.
An excellent piece, thanks! The government tries to frame everything in the reforms as being about offenders and victims - there's a real blind spot when it comes to those who are accused but innocent.
“This is an insult to voters’ intelligence.”
Yes it is, but Starmer, Lammy and Sackman don’t have to convince the voters; like much else (including assisted dying) this wasn’t in the manifesto. They only have to convince the lumpen proletariat that is Labour MPs. It appears from watching last night‘s Newsnight that the argument that this will help survivors of sexual violence has landed well with female MPs, and thus the Bill will sail through 2nd reading.
But like assisted dying, I suspect it will run into considerable opposition in the Lords - and similar arguments about the right of the second chamber to block legislation that was not in the manifesto will arise (even though this is a government Bill).
But either way, and as Sonia concludes, does Starmer really want to be remembered as the PM who rammed through the curtailment of trial by jury?
I had been conflicted about this proposal but this article makes it very clear. The system had already been nudged in 2022 so changing again is unjustified, and more so the contradiction inherent that another "small" nudge will make a big change in efficiency is implausible. Then the shifting of the argument from removing backlogs to a principal basis of improving judgement quality...well they should have made that argument at the start if they believed it, my experience of this type of shifting is it is generally disingenuous.
An excellent piece, thanks! The government tries to frame everything in the reforms as being about offenders and victims - there's a real blind spot when it comes to those who are accused but innocent.
….while look what actually happens in Twelve Angry Men…..
…… is not a phrase I would automatically associate with any Front Bench….
Twelve good men and true