Guardian article on 10 March re: civil legal aid reforms is available @

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/10/justice.law

Interesting line about the receivers going into Gateshead Law Centre last week. Weren't they part of Gateshead CLAC, the first ever CLAC launched by the LSC???

The saga continues...... an article in Society Guardian re the potential closure of South West London Law Centre and Devon too @

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/12/voluntarysector

Also looks like Leicester Law Centre will be closing on 31 March see rightsnet policy story @

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1128-2108-21760+policy

Outrageous!

A4E is a favoured DWP and government contractor - no conflict of interests there? why doesn't the LSC value independent legal advice?

http://www.a4e.co.uk/home.aspx

keith? what's happening?

You can also read various "letters to the editor" in response at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/13/law1

In the 1990’s I used to do legal aid work so I’m well aware of the pressures involved. Working for a local authority I can only count my blessings because of the much-reduced paperwork and recording compliances involved. We also have the luxury of being well resourced, IT, desks, office equipment, etc. Total respect to those less fortunate.

When I read the Guardian article I got so angry, particularly at this paragraph: “last week, Straw used his now familiar line that Britain has the most expensive legal aid system in the world, and that its growth from £1.5bn in 1997 to £2bn in 2005 was unsustainable. But whose fault is that? At the last count, in 2006, Labour had created 3,000 more criminal offences and there have been plenty more since - many of them end up in the legal aid budget, including the big, expensive terrorism trials. But the spend on the bread and butter work of civil legal aid - housing, employment, community care, benefits - dropped by 24% in real terms over the same period. Now it's taking another battering”. More social control, more disenfranchisement. Creeping Orwellianism.

And in this weeks budget Alistair Darling announced “if its good for business its good for Britain”. Yep, just goes to show whose funding New Labour’s programme – the poor. And who benefits – the rich!

According to John Hutton, we should celebrate huge salaries. (the fact that 'some people' have 'em.) we could maybe tag something on to the pledge of allegiance... do a little forelock tugging gesture and perhaps a quaint little morris dance...

meanwhile, does this remind anyone of the social fund argos catalogue?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/13/houseofcommons?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Ahem! One rule for the rich........ Can you just imagine, your avreage working class 16 year old (at least where I come from) pledging allegiance to the British state to which s/e doesn't give too hoots about, let alone the monarch. What price republicanism now.

Helena Kennedy (whose book, Just Law, about the state of the law in New Labour's Britain, is highly recommended by the way)gave a great quote, and I paraphrase slightly. She said the thought of a group of British 16 year olds trooping into some hall and putting their hands on their hearts American style, is, quite frankly, risible.

Brilliant!

desperate stuff... they are at the advanced megolomania stage, and don't seem to be able to stop, even when everything they do has makes things worse...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=530293&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true

who'd have guessed, in 1997, that 'education education education' would end up with parents having to write to GB to ask him to stop indoctrinating our kids and teaching 'em to swear, and slipping a direct debit form to your local academy...<wink>

For the last 20 years public organisations have been ripped apart and reconfigured with colossal waste of money for little or no benefit as a result of incompetent policy making and/or implementation and/or policy vacuums.

The only thing that hasn't changed is our 'wonderful' parliamentary system (except for a fudged attempt with the House of Lords).

Lack of public accountability is declining, but accountability to big business is clearly growing.

Let's change the government - you know how it is meant to go: one political party scrapes along for ten years or so, then another one takes over desperately hoping we have all developed amnesia about their last pathetic attempts. However, that old routine is not going to work much longer as it it becomes increasingly obvious that the real levers of power are to be found in the boardrooms of the Plcs (registered offshore of course), rather than Westminster. Expect MPs to bang on about us not exercising our votes, followed by desperate attempts to bring in compulsory voting as they try to prop up the old boy's club (perks and big fat pensions included).

In the absence of any emerging political alternatives to our moribund system we will probably need to look to our Victorian forebears and protect ourselves through the resurrection of mutual aid societies and charities. Many will suffer as a result, just as they did in the 19th century.

Last Wednesday's budget strap line - 'Stability and opportunity: building a strong, sustainable future' was surely written for the global business players waiting in the wings to offer us 'choice' in our time of need.