DaveO wrote:
... I would disagree however with the notion that it is deliberate that things progress as you say where they legislate and then sort out the legalities afterwards. I really do believe that they do not think things through and it is basic incompetence that leaves them open to legal challenge.
IDS and Co certainly have an agenda IMO and it is a nasty one but I don't think they are competent enough to see their own legislation through without being caught out.
I've told the story before, but ticking on for two years ago, when negotiations were taking place with government over its planned changed to the public service pensions schemes, the lead government negotiators were Francis Maude and Danny Alexander.
The various unions had balloted for industrial action on the issue and, having received the results, were busy setting dates etc.
The government suggested that they delay the date of any action. It was explained to them that, under employment legislation that had been enacted by Conservative administrations of yore, this could not be done. Action has to be taken within a set, limited time after the result of any ballot (30 days, IIRC), or there has to be a new ballot (a costly exercise).
Mr Maude, who is a lawyer apparently, suggested that they could 'suspend' the law for a week or so.
It was suggested to him that you cannot just 'suspend' law when convenient.
He sent away a civil servant to check.
The civil servant returned to confirm that no, you cannot simply 'suspend' a law when it takes your fancy.
This is the stuff of
The Thick of It.
and the area that he represents is, how can I say this, not exactly over-endowed with council house tenants, there are some its true but its fair to say that his area of representation is not exactly deprived inner city, more "the Kensington of Leeds" (if only to set an image in your mind).
