Reposted by @mwhoyle96.bsky.socialDan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 09/10/2026More populist tosh from the TUC. There was no "tax break for the banks". The 8% bank surcharge was created to offset the corporation tax cut from 28% to 20%. So, when corporation tax then went up 5% to its current level, the surcharge went down 5%. Not a tax break. 16118
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 09/10/2026Reminds me of this line in the Thick of It, which always kills me. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 09/10/2026I’m glad for the result. I won’t be voting Labour at the next election. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 09/10/2026Judging by my neighbours, Holborn & St P as a whole and KT specifically are the last places in the UK still supporting Starmer. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 08/10/2026I agree (although I presume the reason they want to do this is because the prcoedures for private and hybrid bills are fairly cumbersome), but I don't think the semi-skimmed version is constitutionally impermissible. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 08/10/2026The whole argument in Pickin v BRB was that the BRB had not complied with the relevant standing orders! 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 08/10/2026I don't think the competence of Parliament turns on whether its processes "contain internal checks and balances", because under Article IX the courts aren't able to inquire into the level of scrutiny! An Act would still be an Act even if Parliament's procedures were properly followed. 200
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 08/10/2026I am fairly sure the Courts would accept the ouster that is proposed in this article, if R (Oceana) v Upper Tribunal and LA (Albania) are anything to go by. 110
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026(I know I’m oversimplifying as ERA and NMW increases have also had big effect, but…) 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Gov: > raises tax on employment > proposes to spend money on resulting unemployment > turns out no money to spend. 200
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Thats not an entirely coherent middle sentence from me, but hopefully it makes sense... 010
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026How could it possibly last, really? There is effectively no principled basis upon which any of the distinctions the HL attempted to justify what they were doing in GCHQ can last, because all these categories come down to "things a particular judge thinks ought not to be reviewed". 130
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026I too agree that many areas governed by the prerogative *ought* to involve judicial review. But Diplock simply says because it ought, it must. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026The HL substituted a principled basis for not reviewing the prerogative with essentially a discretionary one, which has been gradually chipped down to near non existence by this point. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 06/10/2026If one reads GCHQ you will find no rationale for what JR is or why we have it. It basically comes down to “we think there should be JR”. 110
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 05/10/2026OTOH, the reliance group is not those who the minority identify (see the next post in OPs thread) who will make different decisions *in the future* because the law has now changed. Plainly, the change will have a significant detriment on those people, but it is not the same retrospectivity problem. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 05/10/2026That ground is likely more limited than the millions of Americans who have acted on the assumption they have a valid marriage, or the government agencies who had acted on that basis. But they are still real. 110
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 05/10/2026Several different points here. Alito is wrong that no one had a reliance interest in Roe. People will have had sex, and indeed some may have got pregnant, relying on the fact they can later have an abortion. Take e.g. a couple who have a severe risk of having a child with congenital disability. 120
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Of course this is a noble cause. But like all activities, people do them for a variety of reasons, many socially important or beneficial. That is a reason for not introducing the tax at all. 010
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 04/10/2026And here starts the inevitable bottomless pit of exceptions and complexities that dog our politics. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...bbc.co.ukMP asks for medical exemptions to tourist tax plansAlicia Kearns says placing more cost burdens on families would be "unforgivable". 110
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 04/10/2026What is remarkable is how quick the uptake on judge only civil trials was in the 19th and early 20th century. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 04/10/2026We have them because they were the best alternative versus trial by ordeal, trial by combat and wager of law, because they actual involved rational proof in principle. 120
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 04/10/2026The UKs WW1 debt financing was very badly done and caused a lot of pain for the rest of the 20th century, even with a much wider tax base. We basically ended up running down our Industrial Revolution inheritance to do it. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 03/10/2026@spinninghugo.bsky.social don't know whether you've ever seen this book, despite us teaching these cases for several years? 020
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I'm effectively still litigating the long term consequences of it and I wasn't born until the 1990s... 060
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 03/10/2026For reference, it is Ch 6 of "Follow the money : The Audit Commission, public money and the management of public services, 1983-2008". It all only comes to light because someone at Goldman effectively blew the whistle: 1111
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 03/10/2026The council essentially went “yeah, but of course they will” 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 03/10/2026There is a bit in a book about the Audit Commission where, in the late 80s, they confront Hammersmith & Fulham LBC that in entering into floating interest rate swaps not correlated with any borrowing (in order to spend the upfront payment), they have simply been betting that rates will go down. 381
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 02/10/2026Sounds like Burnham is "in hock to the bond market" to me... 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 02/10/2026Of course, if someone has been arrested for domestic abuse dozens of times but never charged (e.g. because their partner refuses to give evidence) then ZXY suggests the police can zip about that. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Not a criticism of you! Just Burnham’s vibes guff. 010
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026The idea that "deindustrialisation" is a phenomenon that started 40 years ago is silly. Take the British car industry: it was in ruins by the 1970s as a result of (a) government planners setting out to wreck Birmingham (b) forced mergers (c) terrible industrial relations and (d) poor management. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Where can I find this deregulation that he speaks of? Is it in the room with us right now? 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026We started deindustrialising somewhere between the late 1800s and the 1930s. At best, the 1960s. The government had the major industry where I am from, Lancashire, on life support as early as the 1920s! 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Given that (aside from privatisation) what he is purporting to desribe either (a) predates Thatcher or (b) never happened or (c) has long since been reversed, I would say his chances are low. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Maybe that argument would succeed, maybe it wont. Standing in the road is clearly a road safety hazard, but DPP v Zeigler suggests it can be protected by Article 10. Its nowhere near as clear cut as you initially suggest. 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026The ECtHR's view is that when it comes to public property, the state must tolerate a certain degree of behaviour if it is a political protest. Where the precise line is is hard to say, but it isn't as simple as saying "you can't break other laws". 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Read e.g. Handzhiyski v Bulgaria and Genov v Bulgaria, where the ECtHR held prosecution for "hooliganism" against protestors placing items like clothes onto statues (or painting them in a way that causes no lasting damage) was disproportionate and a violation of Article 10 ECHR. 200
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026(Court not grappling with case law possibly a result of these injunctions being sought against persons unknown or at best people who end up representing themselves...) 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Obviously to the extent the flags are causing a danger, or there is violence or intimidation against those trying to remove them, its a whole different story. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Setting the irony aside, it has always struck me that the argument itself has some traction, looking at cases like Handzhiyski v Bulgaria (all summarised in the CA Colston Four judgment). I don't think the previous judges have adequately grappled with the case law on Article 10. 210
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 30/09/2026It’s good at generating leads and proof reading. In terms of analysing do find that sometimes it can miss the point, and has to be pushed back on course. 110
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 29/09/2026(Some very highly regarded lawyers‘ whole value add is essentially picking the good points and dropping the bad ones, but it can often backfire on them very badly) 000
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Starmer never seemed very good at changing the conversation. He basically felt like a prisoner of events. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I don’t know if that’s a symptom of being a lawyer - you are stuck with the facts as they exist and often the law as it is, the best you can do is find the easiest path to persuading the tribunal. 111
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Burnham and Cameron thought that they are/would be good at changing minds (even if Burnham wants to do so in a way that keeps him being liked). I don’t feel like Starmer ever thought that. He just chased public opinion, which never works in the end. 100
mwhoyle96.bsky.social @mwhoyle96.bsky.social · 29/09/2026In the long run the auto-enrolment system will increase the provision of private pensions. There already are means tested benefits for pensioners and those systems should remain in place for those who were unable to build a private pension. 010