[The Weeping Angel]

Continuity Tories latest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9k12w5j54o

Parents who experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy will be entitled to bereavement leave under a planned law change.

The government is set to amend the Employment Rights Bill to give parents the legal right to take time off work to grieve if they experience pregnancy loss at any stage.

As it stands, bereavement leave is only available to parents who lose an unborn child after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the change will give "people time away from work to grieve".

"No one who is going through the heartbreak of pregnancy loss should have to go back to work before they are ready," Rayner said.

Parents are currently entitled, external to a fortnight's leave if they suffer pregnancy loss after 24 weeks, or if a child younger than 18 dies.

They can also be eligible for two weeks' statutory parental bereavement pay - either £187.18 a week or 90% of average weekly earnings, whichever is the lower - if they have been working for their employer for at least 26 weeks.

The proposed extended right to leave would be unpaid and last for at least one week, though the exact length is still being consulted on.

Further details - including who will be eligible and whether a doctor's note would be required - will also be decided following a consultation.

The measure would apply in England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland.

The Employment Rights Bill, which includes further measures to protect in law the right of employees to have time off to grieve the loss of a loved one, is already making its way through Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/ju ... re_btn_url

Bosses in the UK will be banned from using non-disclosure agreements to silence employees who have suffered harassment and discrimination in the workplace as part of the government’s overhaul of workers’ rights.

Ministers will on Monday night table amendments to the government’s employment rights bill to prohibit the widespread practice of using legally enforceable NDAs to conceal unacceptable behaviour at work.

If passed, the rules would mean any future confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements that sought to prevent a worker speaking about an allegation of harassment – including sexual harassment – or discrimination would be null and void.

They would also allow victims to speak freely about their experiences, while any witnesses – including employers – would be able to call out poor conduct and publicly support victims without the threat of being sued.

[The Weeping Angel]

John Crace is the sketch writer, so shouldn't be taken seriously. It's the other coverage that annoys me, no sense of trade offs at all. Just "here's a single issuecampaigning group saying Labour are shitty bastards" and "here's a comment article saying they're shitty bastards".

Here's more. Government inherited a completely shitty situation with the courts. Government tries to sort it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ers-courts

Removing the right to a jury trial for more offences would disadvantage people of colour and other minorities and lead to more miscarriages of justice, reformers have warned.

One way of looking at the current system is that it's avoiding miscarriages of justice. Sadly, not be being fair and efficient, but by sticking the cases on an apparently indefinite waiting list. All those cases have victims- very many of them from ethnic minorities. Surely actually getting those trials done has to be the priority?

In fairness, one of the campaign groups quoted does recognize the trade offs, and suggests the (likely) government proposals are OK if they're temporary. That might be a way forward, though like anything, temporary will come to mean indefinitely.

Secret Barrister says it's the fault of the govt because they didn't let Leveson recommend increase funding.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I saw that. I wonder if Brian, knowing of the furorerory that will come about because of, viz, reduction of jury trials is just gaming the game and pushing a push for increased funding?

"Well, if that's what you want, these will be the consequences - how d'ya like them lemons, eh?'

[Abernathy]

I don’t see a problem with Leveson’s recommendations. He’s quite unequivocal that unless something like what he is recommending happens, the justice system could collapse in fairly short order.

Trial by Jury is a bit of a sacred cow that could stand a bit of slaughtering, IMO. (Magna Carta : Did she die in vain ? ) .

There are other jurisdictions around the world where jury trials are used only in limited ways and for the most serious of crimes. France, for instance, seems to manage very well. Leveson’s report is full of good sensible stuff. But then we know from experience that Brian Leveson is a very, very wise man - even if he is sometimes ignored by Tory PMs.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Secret Barrister says it's the fault of the govt because they didn't let Leveson recommend increase funding.

Really?! Has he got on to "£24bn wealth tax" yet?

This stuff does my head in.. There are plenty of other things that need money and don't have relatively painless work arounds proposed by Leveson. The funding is going up anyhow.

At some point, I think people like him have to decide which side they're on. The battle is between Starmer and Farage. It's not between Starmer and perfect liberalism.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I saw that. I wonder if Brian, knowing of the furorerory that will come about because of, viz, reduction of jury trials is just gaming the game and pushing a push for increased funding?

"Well, if that's what you want, these will be the consequences - how d'ya like them lemons, eh?'

Nah, he'd not have wasted his time. He'd have told them straight up "you need a lot more funding", and let someone else do it. He'll be serious about his recommendations.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Here's one for the Secret Barrister. Mark Wild was asked to review HS2. He didn't just say "Well, it can't possibly be done any different. A lot more money is needed". He came back with how to run it better.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -rail-boss

Sounds like the big disaster was rushing the start of construction in 2020. If that had been a Labour Government, we'd never hear the last of it. Remember how much we heard about the NHS IT project?

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is pretty incredible. The BMA's 29% stat is bollocks. And of course 2008 is completely arbitrary as a start date. I think this is poor campaigning. I know it's only an opening gambit, but doctors weren't uniquely penalized by the world wide crash.

They do of course have a case in terms of doctors leaving to get better pay in other countries. But the way to deal with that might be more targeted than a large across the board payrise.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... se-figures

[The Weeping Angel]

Secret Barrister says it's the fault of the govt because they didn't let Leveson recommend increase funding.

Really?! Has he got on to "£24bn wealth tax" yet?

This stuff does my head in.. There are plenty of other things that need money and don't have relatively painless work arounds proposed by Leveson. The funding is going up anyhow.

At some point, I think people like him have to decide which side they're on. The battle is between Starmer and Farage. It's not between Starmer and liberalism.

Over on Bluesky someone claimed that this was paving the way for a Farageist dictatorship.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Not that anybody will say they were right, but the Government were wise not to get too close to the striking doctors (or any other group) before. Anybody who aspires to be in government knows they're going to face strikes. It would be pretty absurd to say that strikes against Tory governments are good, but strikes against Labour governments are bad.

I expect Jez and Sultana will be showing up on picket lines, doubtless telling us that a Proper Labour Government would be paying up. The total public sector pay cost is about £270bn a year. A few very large settlements and that "£24bn wealth tax" will start to deplete.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see we're on to "it's undemocratic for the Government to decide the structure of local government" now. if you want to argue one system is better than another, fine. But it's not exactly some sort of authoritarian departure for central government to prescribe another system. The referendum she's referring to in Bristol happened under the previous government. There's no reason for the new government to be bound by it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Over on Bluesky someone claimed that this was paving the way for a Farageist dictatorship.

If there's one lesson from Trump/Orban/whoever, it's that they do what they want, and don't care about intellectual arguments like "Well, Starmer did X, so you can't object to us doing Y". They flat out don't give a fuck about what anyone else has or hasn't done before. They explicitly represent themselves as norm busting strongmen.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Andy's not being particularly helpful here. He's jumped on the wealth tax bandwagon, and he's giving the government an extended lecture.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-housing

If ministers want to see how welfare reform can be done, come see us in Greater Manchester

In which he tells us what he's doing as mayor, which is fine, he's got some good ideas. But seeing that the Government has devolved powers to him for all this, I'm not sure what the lesson for them is exactly. Devolve faster and wider? Sure, provided they're up to the job. I gave the example the other day of two authorities overpaying for very simple railway stations because they didn't have the expertise. I hope the government doesn't rush.

A 2024 study for the National Housing Federation, carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, found that building 90,000 new social homes would save £3.3bn a year in universal credit over the long term. If the government worked with England’s mayors and councils to scale that number up to 500,000, then the recurrent annual saving to the benefits system gets closer to £18bn.

Sounds like a good investment, but what's the capital cost of 90,000 new social homes (presumably in areas with high rents if the saving to benefits is high)? Shouldn't we have a figure for the cost as well as the saving? Add on interest rates of 4.5% and how does it look? There are plenty of non-financial reasons to build council housing, but if you put it in terms of saving cash, I think you have to present the numbers. My suspicion too is that "work with" mayors actually means "give mayors the money", with as little local contribution as he can get away with.

In terms of a beneficial effect on the poor, isn't there one rather obvious win-win closer to home? 8 years ago, Andy pulled out of the Clean Air Zone negotiations. Extra revenue for transport, better health, what's not to like? We could call it "welfare reform" or something. Sadiq should do a "Come to London and see" article for Andy.

I wish I were convinced that these sensible policies, rolled out nationwide, would solve the spiraling PIP costs experts think are heading our way. Andy was right to tell the Government to drop the silly proposals it came up with, but I don't see eg a program of work placements as making all that much difference.

[The Weeping Angel]

Over on Bluesky someone claimed that this was paving the way for a Farageist dictatorship.

If there's one lesson from Trump/Orban/whoever, it's that they do what they want, and don't care about intellectual arguments like "Well, Starmer did X, so you can't object to us doing Y". They flat out don't give a fuck about what anyone else has or hasn't done before. They explicitly represent themselves as norm busting strongmen.

I note as well that people fail to take into account countries that don't have trial by jury, and they haven't descended into dictatorships.

[The Weeping Angel]

Andy's not being particularly helpful here. He's jumped on the wealth tax bandwagon, and he's giving the government an extended lecture.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-housing

If ministers want to see how welfare reform can be done, come see us in Greater Manchester

In which he tells us what he's doing as mayor, which is fine, he's got some good ideas. But seeing that the Government has devolved powers to him for all this, I'm not sure what the lesson for them is exactly. Devolve faster and wider? Sure, provided they're up to the job. I gave the example the other day of two authorities overpaying for very simple railway stations because they didn't have the expertise. I hope the government doesn't rush.

A 2024 study for the National Housing Federation, carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, found that building 90,000 new social homes would save £3.3bn a year in universal credit over the long term. If the government worked with England’s mayors and councils to scale that number up to 500,000, then the recurrent annual saving to the benefits system gets closer to £18bn.

Sounds like a good investment, but what's the capital cost of 90,000 new social homes (presumably in areas with high rents if the saving to benefits is high)? Shouldn't we have a figure for the cost as well as the saving? Add on interest rates of 4.5% and how does it look? There are plenty of non-financial reasons to build council housing, but if you put it in terms of saving cash, I think you have to present the numbers. My suspicion too is that "work with" mayors actually means "give mayors the money", with as little local contribution as he can get away with.

In terms of a beneficial effect on the poor, isn't there one rather obvious win-win closer to home? 8 years ago, Andy pulled out of the Clean Air Zone negotiations. Extra revenue for transport, better health, what's not to like? We could call it "welfare reform" or something. Sadiq should do a "Come to London and see" article for Andy.

I wish I were convinced that these sensible policies, rolled out nationwide, would solve the spiraling PIP costs experts think are heading our way. Andy was right to tell the Government to drop the silly proposals it came up with, but I don't see eg a program of work placements as making all that much difference.

I read that, what do you make of the current bill that's passed Lots of people are unhappy with it, or at least the ones I've seen on twitter.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I haven't seen what's in it. Might have been better not pass anything.

[The Weeping Angel]

Guardian summary here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lfare-bill

The government’s welfare bill will become law after passing its third reading, but 47 Labour MPs still rebelled despite a series of concessions.

After a succession of votes on amendments, all of which were defeated, the bill passed its final Commons stage by 336 votes to 242.

The rebellion by Labour MPs was only slightly below the 49 who opposed it at second reading last week, when Keir Starmer had been forced to dramatically abandoned the bill’s central plank of deep cuts to personal independence payments (Pip) to get it through.

The bulk of the rebels on Wednesday were from the broad left of the party or were MPs who had submitted or signed amendments.

Earlier, ministers made another concession to the bill over an amendment tabled by the Labour MP Marie Tidball in an attempt to enshrine safeguards for disabled people.

[The Weeping Angel]

Sam Freedman doesn't think the NHS Plan will work

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/op ... hare=false