Lawyers and Legal red tape - this is why our country is fundamentally broken

[blup]

Without lawyers and a legal system the brexhit vote would have been pushed without parliamentary approval. If you want to take control follow the rules . Independents courts are the sign of a democracy. I don’t want the government’s political opponents (like Far rage) to fall out of open windows at height.

 

[motorbiking]

Presumably to make sure one party isn't being bullied or conned by the other.

Not really.

Most of the conning and bullying comes from not knowing what reasonable looks like and people having helpful friends whispering in their ear "I got this" etc.

Assuming people honestly disclose it usually takes a barrister acting as judge about an hour to work out a settlement. it could be replaced by a tool.

 

[ellal]

Assuming people honestly disclose it usually takes a barrister acting as judge about an hour to work out a settlement.

Given the example of divorce and assets, that's the least likely assumption you can make!

 

[Notch7]

The best leaders are out leading, not being politicians.

What does the CEO of Thames water do in terms of leading?

Or the CEO of Clearsprings the company that gets all the asylum seeker contracts?
Or the CEO of train operator companies

 

[Notch7]

Successive governments have failed not because of a lack of talent or ideas... (ok i paused there, somewhat debatable but mostly) because of the way Parliament and government have allowed themselves to become dominated by legal wrangling and bureaucratic red tape. Instead of clear, decisive policy, we are met with endless legal interpretations, challenges, and counter-challenges. For every “solution” a department puts forward, another team of lawyers finds grounds to block it, and yet another group responds by drafting a new legal framework. What results is a circular process where lawyers are the only winners, feeding off complexity while the country remains stuck in inertia.

This problem is not new, it has been a pattern stretching across multiple governments, (look at all the infighting with Boris and courts etc). But today, the situation is arguably worse. Instead of confronting the issue, government culture has normalised it. Bureaucracy is seen as safer than boldness, and legal walls are built higher, protecting processes rather than serving people.

Now, with a Prime Minister who is himself a lawyer, the risk is that this approach becomes further entrenched. Lawyers make their living by dissecting rules, finding loopholes, and crafting counter-arguments. That skill may work in the courtroom, but in government it too often produces delay, caution, and an inability to act with clarity. At a time when the country needs leadership that cuts through barriers, we are being led by someone whose entire career has been about constructing them.

The consequence is a government trapped in self-made legal knots, prioritising debate over delivery, and argument over action. Until this culture is broken, no government, regardless of party, will be able to lead effectively, we are seeing a direct result of that now, with our legal duty to ECHR for example around these illegal immigrants.

Another example that illustrates this problem is the way major infrastructure projects get tangled up in legal wrangling. Take airport expansion, new rail lines, or even housing developments. Each time a plan is put forward, it faces a barrage of legal challenges: environmental impact reviews, planning objections, judicial reviews, counterclaims, and appeals. By the time lawyers, lobbyists, and committees have finished circling, years have passed and costs have multiplied. In some cases, projects are abandoned altogether, not because the idea was wrong, but because the system became a playground for legal teams. Same winner each time, we all know if you approach your local lawyer or solicitor they will always agree you have a case or an argument they need to survive. The problem being they've literally documented themselves into the heart of Government beaurocracy, and somehow we need to reverse this, but in a rapid way.

This is the very cycle government has allowed itself to sink into: where decisions are not measured by what helps the country, but by what can or cannot survive the next legal contest. The result is paralysis, with ordinary people left waiting while lawyers grow richer.

What is the solution?!?

The solution is to break the monopoly lawyers have over government process and return decision-making to accountable leaders, not courtroom tacticians.

Legislate for clarity, not complexity
Every new law should be written in plain, direct language with built-in sunset clauses to prevent endless layering of new rules over old. Simplicity reduces the space for lawyers to exploit grey areas.

Cap the role of judicial reviews and endless appeals
Judicial review should exist to protect rights, not to stall government policy for decades. Strict limits on the number and scope of appeals would stop projects being strangled in legal red tape.

Shift from lawyer-driven committees to citizen-led oversight
Replace panels dominated by solicitors and barristers with balanced oversight committees that include economists, engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs, and everyday citizens. This keeps expertise in the room without making lawyers the gatekeepers of progress.

Cultural change in leadership
Elect leaders who see policy as delivery, not litigation. Ministers should be chosen for their ability to decide and implement, not just argue. Former lawyers should not dominate the upper levels of government!!

Independent watchdog
Establish an external body, free from legal industry influence, tasked with auditing government for unnecessary legal processes and bureaucratic inflation — calling out when policy gets bogged down in red tape rather than moving forward.

So if Keir Starmer said: “I am going to build an accommodation centre for asylum seekers next door to Festives house, spades in the ground next Monday”

You would cheer it on because it is decisive…..

 

[IT Minion]

Not really.

Most of the conning and bullying comes from not knowing what reasonable looks like and people having helpful friends whispering in their ear "I got this" etc.

Assuming people honestly disclose it usually takes a barrister acting as judge about an hour to work out a settlement. it could be replaced by a tool.

No way a web form would ever be ok. Do we not already have a formula for how assets should be divided?

 

[motorbiking]

Given the example of divorce and assets, that's the least likely assumption you can make!

Either way it makes no difference to the division of assets. If one party subsequently finds dishonest disclosure, then the judgement will be reopened and costs awarded.

 

[Notch7]

Taking the political tribalism out of this subject……the reality is this country has a major problem with red tape, especially in regard to planning.

Datacenter would spoil beautiful view ... of former industrial waste dump​

Datacenter plans blocked because it would spoil the view

Not in my backyard, says Buckinghamshire Council

www.theregister.com

Sizewell C ‘Development Consent Order’ was 300,000 pages long.


Major infrastructure project in the U.K. can typically take 20 years from initial announcement to completion. 12+ years of that is planning.

 

[blup]

Taking the political tribalism out of this subject……the reality is this country has a major problem with red tape, especially in regard to planning.

Datacenter would spoil beautiful view ... of former industrial waste dump​

Datacenter plans blocked because it would spoil the view

Not in my backyard, says Buckinghamshire Council

www.theregister.com

Sizewell C ‘Development Consent Order’ was 300,000 pages long.


Major infrastructure project in the U.K. can typically take 20 years from initial announcement to completion. 12+ years of that is planning.

Sounds like a complete eyesore and inappropriate in/adjoining green belt. Developers are attracted by low cost sites within the M25 corridor, that isn’t red tape it’s unplanned development. Plenty of sites up north

 

[motorbiking]

No way a web form would ever be ok. Do we not already have a formula for how assets should be divided?

The current method is something called a form E. A poorly put together pdf with errors in.

The concept is no more complex than a self assessment system. You could easily upload the necessary data in a web form.

No there is no formula. The courts have broad discretion. Though most end up close to 48/48 with the lawayers taking 2 each.

 

[Brigadier]

 

[Brigadier]

Meritocracy, not Establishment.

 

[SPLINE]

On lawyers... lawyers are one of many species of parasite sucking the life out of this country, you are bang on as usual Festo. Starmer was a human rights lawyer defender of foreign criminals and he has continued doing that now he is Prime Minister. When the deportations start there needs to be detention camps set up to hold all the human rights and immigration lawyers, lefty immigrant helping charities, labour and conservative MPs and all other commie fellow travellers who might hinder the campaign.

 

[MNW67]

On lawyers... lawyers are one of many species of parasite sucking the life out of this country, you are bang on as usual Festo. Starmer was a human rights lawyer defender of foreign criminals and he has continued doing that now he is Prime Minister. When the deportations start there needs to be detention camps set up to hold all the human rights and immigration lawyers, lefty immigrant helping charities, labour and conservative MPs and all other commie fellow travellers who might hinder the campaign.

Utterly brilliant!

 

[IT Minion]

The current method is something called a form E. A poorly put together pdf with errors in.

The concept is no more complex than a self assessment system. You could easily upload the necessary data in a web form.

No there is no formula. The courts have broad discretion. Though most end up close to 48/48 with the lawayers taking 2 each.

The reason it shouldn't be a form is the potential for abuse. Proving a lack of intimidation, violence, impersonation etc. Etc. Etc. Would be a nightmare.

The process might have potential for simplification but that sort of decision needs oversight.