Following the people's priorities

Tweet

 

“How will you pay for it?” is one of those standard questions asked of opposition politicians whenever they propose a different policy to that being pursued by the government. For reasons which have been discussed here previously, it’s actually a very silly question, depending on the assumption that government finances are like those of a household, but it’s a question which is effectively deployed not just by government politicians, but by supportive – or merely lazy – journalists who either don’t want or else can’t be bothered to delve more deeply into the question.

It’s not a question which has been much asked about the vast amounts of military aid being sent to Ukraine, despite the fact that none of that aid was ever budgeted for at the time it started to be sent. It’s not a question which has been much asked about the strikes on Yemen, where millions of pounds’ worth of ordinance has been expended on trying to take out a few cheap drones. And whilst ‘the cost’ is apparently an entirely valid obstacle, in Tory eyes, to expanding the membership of the Senedd, it’s not an issue which seems even to have been raised about the government’s plan to appoint an extra 150 judges to deal with the surge in immigration cases. Although, interestingly enough, when the Tories told us what Wales needed more than more politicians, they only referred to  "…more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers…". No mention of judges there.

Given the backlog of criminal cases, it’s hard to disagree with the government’s conclusion that we need more courtrooms and more judges to hear cases, but for those waiting for cases against those who have burgled or assaulted them, giving priority to the surge in immigration cases in an attempt to deport a tiny number of people to Rwanda buy off opponents within the Tory Party may not be a precise match with their own priorities. It turns out, however, that even if the government do fund more judges, and even if the processes for recruiting them can be sped up from the normal glacial pace of such matters, the government have no power to direct which cases they will hear. That, it seems, is a matter for the Lady Chief Justice, who takes a dim view of the government trying to tell her what to do. (On the other hand, judges taking a dim view of their actions is hardly a new experience for the current government, for whom abiding by the law is not considered to be something about which they need to worry themselves unduly.)

Still, it means that Sunak might actually achieve something he’s always boasting inaccurately about. If he finds the money, and if the judges are recruited, and if the Lady Chief Justice deploys them as she sees fit rather than as the government might wish, it might actually help to reduce the backlog of criminal cases. In which case, Sunak would, indeed, be acting in line with ‘the priorities of the British people’. Even if it’s by accident.