Financial Times: Cameron targets non-Tory vote
The FT does, indeed, cover this rather more sensibly than I do….
David Cameron has rejected calls from the right to reach out to traditional Tories who last backed the party in its 1992 election victory, saying many of those voters were now dead, as he launched a campaign on Monday, targeted at people who have never voted Conservative before.
The marketing blitz – including posters at 1,500 sites in England, Scotland and Wales and a mailshot to more than 2m homes – marks an acceleration of the pre-election campaigning.
[I just loved the bit about 'many of the voters who voted in 1992 are now dead']
Apparently. Mr Wright MP deleted this unfortunate tweet – but it was picked up by Iain Dale…rightly… Parody is valid… this sort of nonsense is just ‘unpleasant’. Hat Tip @benjaminfgray and @ToryBear who asked if a Labour supporter/blogger was prepared to be critical… I am not a political blogger. I do vote Labour and I am more than prepared to be critical of this sort of nonsense by a Labour MP – but does it really matter?…and who really cares?
See how they run? The Ministry of Truth theme for this edition of Law Review seems to be most appropriate. Paul Waugh takes up the David Wright MP story on his Evening Standard blog: Twitterstorm – bang to Wrights
TALES FROM THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH
Just as Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem political bloggers tend to stick to their party line -
sometimes ad nauseam (I am not a political blogger – quite happy to be critical of all parties) The Guardian doesn’t seem to like the truth when it doesn’t suit them either.
Dominic Lawson, writing in The Times, has an interesting piece on Ali Dizaei, the bent Iranian copper who has been banged up for corruption. Lawson notes, with a degree of wry pleasure no doubt: “The National Black Police Association… was not the only organisation to have been made a fool of by this arch-manipulator of racial politics: the BBC had made his dishonest memoir its Radio 4 Book of the Week, and The Guardian was also a willing media partner in his campaign to become the country’s most powerful policeman. Meanwhile, this bent copper’s newspaper of choice seemed to have an exclusive post-trial interview, reporting that “Dizaei, 47, remained defiant and told The Guardian the case was ‘completely outrageous and a fit-up’. He said that he had been pursued by the authorities, who had a ‘vendetta’ against him”. Amazing, given that Dizaei had in fact been found guilty himself of fitting up an innocent man who had crossed him, that any newspaper could publish such comments without its pages turning red with embarrassment.”
Meanwhile… over at the Ministry of Getting Re-Elected… we have the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 – the first in a series of oxymoronic or just moronic pieces of legislation?
Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Initial duties
(1) The Treasury must ensure that, for each of the financial years ending in 2011 to 2016, public sector net borrowing expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product is less than it was for the preceding financial year.
(2) The Treasury must ensure that, for the financial year ending in 2014, public sector net borrowing expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product is no more than half of what it was for the financial year ending in 2010.
(3) The Treasury must ensure that—
(a) public sector net debt as at the end of the financial year ending in 2016 expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (centred on 31 March 2016), is less than
(b) public sector net debt as at the end of the previous financial year expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (centred on 31 March 2015)………
And… from the law blogosphere.
From a very useful ‘new’ blog Obiter J reports
The Lord Chief Justice has published his “Review of the Adminstration of Justice in the Courts.” The Review covers the legal year 1st October 2008 to 30th September 2009.
1. Concern is raised (para. 2.12) about the use of out-of-court methods of dealing with offenders – such as fixed penalty notices, cautions and conditional cautions. “
To give a little balance to my Mock The Tory caption pics - but not written for that reason – Matthew Taylor of the MTPT blog writes: “Labour’s Twenty Nations, or How to duck the decimal
John Bolch, Family Lore, appears to have been eating Viagra for Bloggers pills – he has a very sharp piece this morning… a letter to Mrs John terry… Dear Mrs Terry, allegedly
I am always happy to see a bit of White Rabbit on the blog. Fellow blogger and connoisseur of the bizarre, hyperbolic and hypocritical, White Rabbit has a piece about ‘Lowering the Tone’ and those ‘posters’. Have a look.
But it is not all about ‘Rippers from The Royals’ over at White Rabbit. Here he is reflecting on Ozymandias
A useful note on Contingency Fee Agreements – final regulations unveiled from Usefully Employed, an employment law barrister.
Who Needs a Lawyer Anyway?
Pink Tape aasks and then puts forward an answer…“Not social workers apparently. At least so says the British Association of Social Workers which offers representation from non-lawyers as a perk of its membership. Barristers (incorrectly referred to by BASW as solicitors) offering their services for free via FRU or the Bar Pro Bono Unit may not have the necessary expertise in social work practice and regulation to better their own service it seems from a piece in Community Care………….“
Ipso Jure writes..”Ten Great Reasons to Learn about IP Law”
Another interesting piece from John Flood of RATS (Random Academic Thoughts)…
“”Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.” So said Chairman Mao in 1957, on which the misquotation above is based.
I’m not sure Mao would be happy with his phrase being used in conjunction with new forms of legal practice about to emerge from the chrysalis of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). (Apologies for mangling metaphors…) In the last two days I have been listening to the Legal Services Board talk about what is to happen. This is in part because they have published a new business plan, which I urge you to read.
Colin Samuels continues to do a detailed review of Law blogs – sometimes even more detailed than the official ‘Blawg Reviews’ and this week is no exception with A Round Tuit (18)
Colin starts his Round Tuit with these words…“Was it because a legal technology conference took place in New York or a legal marketing conference took place in Seattle? Both? Neither? Whatever it was, this week seemed to have more than its share of debate about the character of new legal blogging and of legal marketing more generally. There were of course hurt feelings, accusations of bullying, and calls for civil discourse (meaning, unfortunately, an absence of criticism during periods of self-promotion).”
Whatever next? … in the legal blogosphere?
The Official ‘Blawg review’ comes this week (again) from Canada:
Blawg Review #251
Jailhouse lawyer has a piece on his blog Prisoner’s Voice : Prisoners threaten to sue in voting rights row
Capitalists@Work : Always beware the Spanish Inquisition
“This story today is hilarious. “Apparently the Anglo-Saxon media are in cahoots to talk Spain down for their own benefit. This is a great example of many games Government like to play:
- Start by shooting the messenger
- When that fails; tell everybody the messenger is a horrible foreigner anyway……”
Natasha Phillips of The Divorce Manual “has teamed up with Family Lore’s John Bolch to bring you a weekly news roundup of Family Law issues in England. We hope you enjoy it!”
Jonathan Mitchell QC, a Scots advocate, has a very interesting piece: Success rate in judicial review petitions in Scotland
“This post quotes in full a recent response by the Office of the Advocate General to a freedom of information request by Alan Caskie, an advocate specialising in asylum and immigration law. This response shows that the success rate for petitions in this area is high, and rising year by year…..”
Ever mindful that UK lawyers are, slowly, taking to twitter and blogging… I found Peninsulawyer’s post on Twitter analytics of great interest
Dan Hull of WhatAboutClients? doesn’t mince his words – and he is not too keen on people who mince theirs… but in a different way.
Dan is an enthusiast for good writing and his blog, when not providing good analysis of client service, often contains ‘treasures’…
This week:Writing well, living large.
“Commenting on the body of work left by John Dryden (1631-1700), the English poet, critic and playwright, Samuel Johnson, who was born a few years after Dryden’s death, called Dryden’s compositions “the effects of a vigorous genius working upon large materials”.
AND…JUST A BIT MORE HARD LAW….
Media asks court to reinstate criticism of MI5 in Binyam Mohamed case
The Times reports: “Britain’s senior judges will rethink this week their controversial decision to excise damning criticism of MI5 from a ruling published last week.
Lawyers for leading British and American media organisations have written to the Court of Appeal asking the judges to reinstate a paragraph — which disclosed how much M15 had been told about the torture of the Guantánamo Bay detainee, Binyam Mohamed — that they removed from their draft judgment after representations from the Foreign Secretary.
The media groups include The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, BBC News, Associated Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and Index on Censorship. The human rights organisations Justice, and Liberty have also urged the judges to reconsider.
The move comes after the disclosure last week that Jonathan Sumption, QC, for David Miliband, wrote to the three appeal judges after seeing a draft of the judgment to express concern about remarks in it by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls. Mr Sumption said that the comments were “likely to receive more public attention than any other part of the judgments” and, if cited in other cases, would “mark an unprecedented breakdown in relations between the courts and the executive in the area of public interest immunity”.”
I have published tomorrow morning’s Law Review early because: I may be ‘ite and abite’ tomorrow morning – but, be sure, there will be something for me to write about on the morrow anyway… until then.