From local elections to fiscal rules, Labour’s government is proving that the only change it can deliver is Starmer changing his mind.
The judges appear to have decided that the Home Office has the power to modify acts of parliament by publishing internal guidance.
It reflects British legal traditions more than foreign ones, and it stands as insurance against the very sort of authoritarian or socialist government Conservatives most fear.
If it is in part judges taking a more expansive interpretation of their rights and responsibilities, that itself is downstream of politicians legislating in such a way as gives them more freedom to do so.
Our current legal and political machinery lands the mother of a 13-year-old daughter in prison for over a year over some nasty words online yet pours its energies to rescuing a man who detests Britain.
The Government’s proposals risk a rushed abolition of one of our most fundamental and historic rights – and removing one of the key features that holds up public trust in the judicial system – for a hurried attempt at backlog cutting that is unlikely to work.
We live in a world where the mere words of an officer under extreme stress, facing the threat of a knife, is considered more damaging than the actual lawbreakers.
Remaining in the ECHR signals to allies and trading partners alike that Britain is serious about environmental governance and the stability that underpins sustainable growth.
For a treaty often at the centre of tabloid firestorms, the public at large are surprisingly reticent to leave it. Support for reform, on the other hand, is overwhelming.
Why do laws apply to us but not to these new offenders? It is bad enough that some people born and brought up here commit crimes. We do not want new arrivals to make matters worse.
To the voter the message is clear: the party has learnt nothing. It still cannot be trusted to deliver what voters, supporters and members expect it to deliver. It remains internally riven by an ideological divide.
We tackle head-on the myths that have paralysed action for years: that we’d become a pariah state, that we can reform from within, that repealing the Human Rights Act is enough.
It cannot be right that our regulatory system means that courts decide if wages are fair rather than a market based on mutual agreement; it certainly isn’t productive.
Historically, full participation in the political community marked the culmination of someone’s development as an adult citizen. Today, we invert that logic.
London faces a choice: treat its legal dominance as heritage – or treat it as strategy. If the aim is to protect and grow this export, the agenda is practical.