The Guardian has reported that Boris Johnson wants to secure control of the courts and the prosecution service, a move which would put London's mayor in charge of the criminal justice system in the capital. It has said that
The plan would see control wrested from Whitehall and the devolution of the most important pillars of the justice system.
I find this suggestion quite extraordinary. One of the most basic functions of the state is to deliver consistent, fair and accountable justice across the country for which it is responsible. Devolving this power would be to undermine the state itself (whilst the recognition that Scotland has always had a separate legal system is, perhaps, the strongest indication of its separate statehood).
London is not a state. If it were to be a state within a state then it would be very prone to capture by the other existing state within a state in the UK at present - the City of London - and that could lead to all sorts of abuse.
Devolving tax powers from the state might be macro-economically unwise. Devolving justice itself would be to signal the end of the state, in my opinion.
Is that what Johnson wants? It may be, of course. In that case, worry.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“Devolving justice itself would be to signal the end of the state, in my opinion”
Justice in this country has been devolved to the EU since 1 January 1972. Did that signal the end of the state?
If Londoners voted to secede from the UK, would you respect that vote?
That is complete nonsense and shows you do nopt even understand the EU
In Australia, the vast majority of criminal justice system is administered by the States, not the Commonwealth (ie national government). For the main crimes (murder, sexual assault etc), you are charged, tried and convicted under the law of the State, not the Commonwealth. There are Commonwealth crimes comparatively few.
There will be some differences between them. Even the ACT (ie Canberra), with a population of under 400,000, has its own criminal justice system.
I don’t think anyone has complained that the ‘state’ (i.e. the nation) has failed anybody for this reason.
That is because these states are states
Like Scotland is a state
And Adelaide is not
‘And Adelaide is not’
You’re right.
But what about Canberra (pop. 381,000)?
It has its own territory (‘Australian Capital Territory’, which is pretty much just the city) that isn’t a state. (Not that NSW, Qld, Tassie etc are really states either – they’re really just provinces).
It has about 1/30th the population of London, yet seems capable of running a criminal justice system without causing too much of a problem for the rest of the country.
You might say ‘Canberra is special, as the capital of the country’. Well, if so, the same can be said of London.
In. Federal state Canberra makes sense as does DC
We are not a federal state
So your argument makes no sense
Sorry, I read your post thinking you were saying there was something inherently wrong with federations (i.e. one political division within a country running itself differently to another political division in the same country).
And therefore something inherently wrong with the UK behaving like a federation (at least in this regard).
I’m not sure there is anything inherently wrong with it.
What you didn’t mention from the article is that Manchester is jumping on board. It’s the way the wind is blowing on a lot of things in that city, so it doesn’t surprise me.
And you can bet that if Greater Manchester wants it, Merseyside will want it. So will Tyne and Wear. Then West Midlands. And so on…
But we are not a federation and so his model creates massive problems for no gain
And so I oppose it in the interests of justice, which by and large we deliver in thus country when it is properly funded
And yes, I do know of all the failures. When saying that
All human systems fail
Richard,
just an observation, The city of London is I believe, already outside the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament.
If BJ get his way, would not the combination of both in effect create an de jure state within a state.
This would then allow powerful interest to elect to be under the jurisdiction of one entity (city of london/london courts) while living in another (rest of uk)
Dunno, Buck House would make a tidy nick squire. Boris could reopen it as a modern Newgate. The possibilities are endless.
Fear not. There is no chance of this happening.
But there are ways of doing it which would not have such a malign effect. Administering courts and prosecution is not the same as having a separate legal system. After all, the CPS didn’t exist until 1985 and the world did not fall apart. Probation services are in line for devolution under Labour.
I agree, Richard – this is an extraordinary proposal. Who will appoint the Judges and Magistrates? Who will fund the system? And will there be “competitive” fees for lawyers in the new “state within a state”. And what about questions of jurisdiction? Decisions on civil cases run to different rules for criminal cases, and rules on Tribunals (of which Employment Tribunals are only the best-known example of many more such as Immigration, Valuation and Social Security and Child Support Tribunals. Frankly, we run the risk of turning London into the legal equivalent of 19th century pre-unification Germany, where each petty Dukedom and statelet had its own tax rates and rules – a veritable lunatic asylum. I predict a glut of appeals to the High and Supreme Courts over questions of jurisdiction – all mightily expensive and totally unnecessary. Boris Johnson should probably be sectioned: he certainty comes up with some bizarre ideas.
What worries me just as much is the idea by Osborne of making austerity legally binding.
It’s mentioned on the people’s assembly website.
http://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/austerity_to_become_legally_binding
Agreed
But that could be reversed by another parliament
The short answer to the question embedded in your post title I’m afraid is ‘Yes’.
For example, in the Observer, there was an article about northern council’s asking for local tax raising powers to free themselves from the financial restrictions laid down by Westminster. That is a definite move towards that direction (but done out of desperation – not desire). But you could also say it is an intended outcome of the niggardly funding of the regions coming from this government. The neo-cons just want to destroy government by making it unresponsive to its people so that people (naturally) lose faith in it and put their faith in the free market and then you also get consent to further reduce government in our lives.
I think it quite plausible (and NOT desirable IMHO) that ‘city states’ could rise again in this country. The ‘markets’ would love that because they’d have more fun arbitraging than they do now and arguing that the markets were setting the correct price of everything.
If you think about it, there has always been a medieval element to politics in this country. All parliament did in the civil war was to appropriate the power of the king; it did not change that power – all that changed was who had the right to use the royal prerogative. That prerogative can now be used to break up the apparatus of the state.
To me, many councillors and MPS are increasingly just modern versions of our medieval ‘betters’ – the dukes and earls who used to run these lands until certain houses decided to try to govern nationally. To me, the apparent push for any city state just means that our history might now be coming full circle. This means a return to chaos, and as we know, there is no such thing as a genuinely free markets – they are manipulated by the players (usually the bigger ones) for their own end and these people love chaos – they know how to make it work for them.
Their problem for neo-cons though is that they are so focussed on their ‘idiotology’ that they forget that what they really are doing is playing with fire. I think that the kings and queens of old in this country new this and tried – and did – bring order because chaos is what confronted them at that time. This is why I think things must get worse here before they get better – the Tory neo cons need to see the results of their stupidity before they can stop. I can’t see anything else having the same effect. I think that UKIP might be a symptom of this (an unintended outcome that causes THEM damage) – unless of course the whole UKIP thing is actually part of Lynton Crosby’s cunning plan – and I wouldn’t put it past him either).
This is, as you say, another dimension to neo-feudalism