What immediate changes will the new Labour government make?

Sorry forgot.

Reference The Constitution Society.

ronib

MaizieD I thought it was the job of the Civil Service to work out how to put legislation into effect.

It is and they do and have never refused to do so.

But the question is this

“Should civil servants refuse to enforce any regulations that are “incompatible” with international law?”

Yes’ – they should refuse. They are required to “comply with the law” and that means every law, not just most of them. I fail to see how enforcing regulations that are incompatible with international law can be said to be complying with the law.”

mayisay

The thought of a Labour government is extremely concerning for me. I feel they will carry on where Blair left off, and we will not recognise the country that we live in at all.

Well considering the dire state it’s in right now, I sincerely hope I won’t.

Nothing much in a year, things take time to really change. After a year people will be complaining about them too.

mayisay

The thought of a Labour government is extremely concerning for me. I feel they will carry on where Blair left off, and we will not recognise the country that we live in at all.

The country has gone downhill over the last 14 years.

I don't recognise the country in which I used to live and was once proud of. Once a forerunner in the industrial revolution and a country that produced more inventors than most. Look at it now.

Do you really think that a new LP govt would make things worse?

Going back up the thread to a comment of Dinamo, I think it was in about 2020 rather than 2016 when Rees Mogg said that the benefits of Brexit would take 50 years. In 2016 the benefits we’re oven-ready.
But Kenin Malik in today’s Observer is spot-on re Labour being too scared of Tory criticism of financial imprudence to do what is needed Immediately to relieve poverty in this country.

MaizieD I thought it was the job of the Civil Service to work out how to put legislation into effect.

Yes

ronib

Wwm2 you have given quite a simple explanation. The First Division is there to serve the government of the day. It needed to endorse government policies and not obstruct.

It is also obliged to observe the Rule of Law. That includes International Law.

Civil servants are not obliged to 'endorse' government policies. That would be a political act.

They are obliged to implement them so long as they are legal.

The thought of a Labour government is extremely concerning for me. I feel they will carry on where Blair left off, and we will not recognise the country that we live in at all.

Wyllow3 unlikely? It’s gone to the courts and is awaiting judgement. Very few people are aware of this and there’s no way the law will be changed to disadvantage the First Division of the Civil Service. No time left anyway.

I suspect its likely the law will be changed before it gets that far?

Wwm2 let’s wait for the judgement?

ronib

Wwm2 you have given quite a simple explanation. The First Division is there to serve the government of the day. It needed to endorse government policies and not obstruct.

But it isn’t obstructing it. The union is protecting its members as unions do, to ensure that in carrying out government policy they are not breaking the law.

If you had been a civil servant you would know that adherence to the rule of law is first second and last principle.

Wwm2 you have given quite a simple explanation. The First Division is there to serve the government of the day. It needed to endorse government policies and not obstruct.

Whitewavemark2

ronib

Wwm2 The First Division is disputing the Government’s Rwandan policy in the High Courts- judgement awaiting.
The Government needs a First Division Civil Service willing and able to implement the government of the day’s policies.
Not sure how that will happen.

A civil service union has launched a judicial review for a ruling over the Rwanda Bill which might mean that they are breaking international law.

Part of the Civil Service Act requires civil servants to act within the law including international law.

Does no one realise that one of the reasons that the Rwanda Scheme will be stopped on day 1 of a Labour Government is because it breaks the law?

Starmer could not possibly reside over that!

winterwhite

At the last leaders' debate Starmer was pressed hard on when the man-in-the-street could expect to see a difference from the implementation of Labour policy, esp re the NHS. His response was duck and weave, so nothing much in the first 5 years then. Maybe unavoidable but calamitous. What happened to the idea of low-hanging fruit? Labour needs some and needs it now.

Btw, if I read the S Times correctly, Kemi Badenoch is claiming that Brexit is a 10-20 years project. I don't remember that being said in 2016🤣

Don't forget Rees Mogg who said it would take 50 years before there were major benefits.

ronib

*Wwm2 * The First Division is disputing the Government’s Rwandan policy in the High Courts- judgement awaiting.
The Government needs a First Division Civil Service willing and able to implement the government of the day’s policies.
Not sure how that will happen.

A civil service union has launched a judicial review for a ruling over the Rwanda Bill which might mean that they are breaking international law.

Part of the Civil Service Act requires civil servants to act within the law including international law.

Primrose53
"Labour dislikes people who have made themselves wealthy which is madness as most of them have done it through sheer hard work. They dislike people who can now afford to send their kids to private schools or buy a second home."

That old trope!!!!!

I'm a semi retired accountant ie a professional middle class woman - in some peoples' eyes. Like all my friends in fact except only one was an accountant. None of us are envious of those with more than us, like some on here seem to think. Some of them are substantially better off than my DH and I. What we all want is for a more equal society in which the poorer members are supported to live better lives than they do at present.

I am fed up with my charity donations going to British charities such as Shelter, the Sally Army and food banks etc, which for the past two years I have supported. My preference is to give to animal charities, MSF and wild life conservation. I'm hoping that I will be able to revert to the latter in the near future.

At the last leaders' debate Starmer was pressed hard on when the man-in-the-street could expect to see a difference from the implementation of Labour policy, esp re the NHS. His response was duck and weave, so nothing much in the first 5 years then. Maybe unavoidable but calamitous. What happened to the idea of low-hanging fruit? Labour needs some and needs it now.

Btw, if I read the S Times correctly, Kemi Badenoch is claiming that Brexit is a 10-20 years project. I don't remember that being said in 2016🤣

Wwm2 The First Division is disputing the Government’s Rwandan policy in the High Courts- judgement awaiting.
The Government needs a First Division Civil Service willing and able to implement the government of the day’s policies.
Not sure how that will happen.

ronib

The country will continue to be governed by the First Division of the Civil Service. Parliament is not in charge here.
More of the same?

Well that is incorrect.

I see that the Tory supporters are out in full on here. Fighting a last ditch attempt to save that party?

Good luck to you since it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Since 1945 the Tories have been in power for 42 years plus a further 5 with the LibDems. Labour has been in power for 30 years. I appreciate that this does not total 79 years, only 77 but I have neither the time nor the inclination to add up all the months. Percentage wise the LP were in power for 39% of the time and the CP for 61%.

The Tories have caused a lot of harm - firstly with the 3 day week under Heath's govt and more recently with austerity since 2010. Personally I think that the LP can only do better.

The country will continue to be governed by the First Division of the Civil Service. Parliament is not in charge here.
More of the same?

Kandinsky

Ok, a Corbyn supporter as PM.
He’s still extremely popular from what I see.

Who would that be then ?