Legal Aid Cuts. The real reason!!

[I1L2T3]

Whether Tory, Lab or Lib Dems are in power, all of them would continue with these reforms.angle

 

As some point soon, those alligning themselves with various political parties will realise that none of them give a flying hoot about you when in power. They will always look after big industry and the elite. As for Labour, they shafted even the Unions, the people who put them into office.

 

I don't think the commercial/lobbying/party funding issues are remotely the same. The BTE industry have lobbied hard for the changes to be implemented in a particular way, donating £5.4m to the Tories along the way. Now we have the spectacle of senior Tories promoting the industry.

 

More info at link:

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news-analysis/2049613/government-event-myth

 

25 million people already have this cover as an add-on to motor and home insurance, often at negligible cost (e.g. £10-20). Few ever claim. The insurance industry would now like you to pay up to £150 a year for the same thing you already get for peanuts. And they have effectively paid ministers to help you think you need the new more expensive version of the cover.

[I1L2T3]

I refer you back to post #2, from someone who's actually been dealing with these plans since they were first mooted. There have been no changes between then and now.

 

Nice try.

[Moosey]

I refer you back to post #2, from someone who's actually been dealing with these plans since they were first mooted. There have been no changes between then and now.

 

You see, I was going to help him/her, and at lunch was all ready to go through my emails at work, to find the bits of Jackson's first report and suggestions that we'd been sent in 2009, and then to copy in the various stages of the bill as it went through. We've been copied in on them all by APIL (the association of PI lawyers), and given the impact this will have on law firms, we've been kept bang up to date, so it wouldn't have taken that much trawling through my old emails.

 

Then I logged on, realised that he/she wasn't interested in facts, merely political point scoring, so went for a coffee instead and relaxed in the canteen with my mate.

 

I mean, despite the fact that it'd be lovely if it were actually Ken Clarke's bill, and not all down to Lord Jackson and his review of legal costs from 2007 - 2009, resulting in the LASPO act, that wouldn't allow for this to be purely political, rather than about access to justice, so wouldn't fit the point of the thread. But anyway.

 

As an aside, because the OP is, I'm guessing, thinking I'm some tory lawyer, hence why I'm taking this stance, I'd point out that if you search any threads on voting I've contributed to, you'll find I don't actually vote, because I trust none of the main parties, and frankly don't care. If I'd voted tory to try to avoid these changes, my point would have been proven. All politicians do what they want - the same liars in different coloured ties.

[I1L2T3]

You see, I was going to help him/her, and at lunch was all ready to go through my emails at work, to find the bits of Jackson's first report and suggestions that we'd been sent in 2009, and then to copy in the various stages of the bill as it went through. We've been copied in on them all by APIL (the association of PI lawyers), and given the impact this will have on law firms, we've been kept bang up to date, so it wouldn't have taken that much trawling through my old emails.

 

Then I logged on, realised that he/she wasn't interested in facts, merely political point scoring, so went for a coffee instead and relaxed in the canteen with my mate.

 

I mean, despite the fact that it'd be lovely if it were actually Ken Clarke's bill, and not all down to Lord Jackson and his review of legal costs from 2007 - 2009, resulting in the LASPO act, that wouldn't allow for this to be purely political, rather than about access to justice, so wouldn't fit the point of the thread. But anyway.

 

As an aside, because the OP is, I'm guessing, thinking I'm some tory lawyer, hence why I'm taking this stance, I'd point out that if you search any threads on voting I've contributed to, you'll find I don't actually vote, because I trust none of the main parties, and frankly don't care. If I'd voted tory to try to avoid these changes, my point would have been proven. All politicians do what they want - the same liars in different coloured ties.

 

I'm not scoring political points. I'm making the point that there is a commercial/party funding angle to this that legitimately needs to be questioned. Why does the Tory party feel the need to promote insurance at £150 a year that is effectively given away for nowt at present to 25 million policy holders? And to what extent has a major source of their party funding contributed to this stance?

 

The LASPO bill takes the Jackon recommendations and then adds quite a bit more. The core of some of it would have been at the heart of the bill whatever party was in power but Clarke has added more. And you know that don't you? If it was exactly as the Lib Dems or Labour would have implemented if in government alone why did the government suffer six defeats in the Lords last week over the LASPO bill?

 

Anyway, they say never trust a lawyer. I never thought for one minute you'd provide any links No offence intended.

[Moosey]

why did the government suffer six defeats in the Lords last week over the LASPO bill?

 

Anyway, they say never trust a lawyer. I never thought for one minute you'd provide any links No offence intended.

 

Because thankfully the lords have a little sense, and since it was proposed all those years ago, campaigning by the likes of "Don't Cut Justice" and similar, which we were involved in, has made the Lords think. Not enough, but they've put things back a few years it seems thankfully. 2016 I heard today.

[HeadingNorth]

You see, I was going to help him/her...

 

...Then I logged on, realised that he/she wasn't interested in facts, merely political point scoring, so went for a coffee instead and relaxed in the canteen with my mate.

 

It's probably just as well. If you'd provided definite links that proved beyond doubt he was talking rubbish, he'd only take that as evidence that you are a Tory activist in disguise and carry on talking nonsense to everyone.

[I1L2T3]

It's probably just as well. If you'd provided definite links that proved beyond doubt he was talking rubbish, he'd only take that as evidence that you are a Tory activist in disguise and carry on talking nonsense to everyone.

 

Let's have the links then.

 

They will tell you that the Jackson final report was not published until Jan 2010 for a start. Only 3.5 months before the General Election. Which gave the Labour government no time to 'introduce' anything as you previously claimed on this thread.

 

Hopefully if these links are any good they will show that the Government's official consultation phase did not start until Nov 2010, with some significant amendments to the original 100+ recommendations.

 

And hopefully they would show that in Lord Jackson's own formal response to the official consultation he described the governments amendments as undermining his original proposals, creating unintended incentives and potentially "disasterous".

 

You could go and find this out yourself. Easily. But it doesn't suit because you seem happier ganging up on other posters and dishing out insults. Then again, whatever floats your boat

[Moosey]

Three things before work starts -

 

1. Jackson's consultation period started in 2007.

2. Before him, Lord Carter had decimated criminal legal aid

3. You do realise I take it that most insurers don't actually make much money from BTE policies? Working as I do almost exclusively with BTE clients, I know that for example Aviva's BTE policies are absolutely nothing to do with Aviva, and that's the same for all the Aviva subsidiaries. All the BTE policies are dealt with by another insurer, usually someone like RAC, or one of the other providers who provide after the event cover as well. I give the explanation on this to clients every day of my working life.

[I1L2T3]

Three things before work starts -

 

1. Jackson's consultation period started in 2007.

2. Before him, Lord Carter had decimated criminal legal aid

3. You do realise I take it that most insurers don't actually make much money from BTE policies? Working as I do almost exclusively with BTE clients, I know that for example Aviva's BTE policies are absolutely nothing to do with Aviva, and that's the same for all the Aviva subsidiaries. All the BTE policies are dealt with by another insurer, usually someone like RAC, or one of the other providers who provide after the event cover as well. I give the explanation on this to clients every day of my working life.

 

Jackson's review started in 2007. He did not publish his final report until January 2010. Are you disputing the latter?

 

The MoJ commenced a formal consultation exercise in response to the report in Nove 2010. The consultation included changes to the original recommendations in the Jackson report. Are you disputing this?

 

Jackson pretty much damned the proposed changes. Are you disputing this?

 

The LAPSO bill is a Tory bill in response to the Nov 2010 consultation. Are you disputing this?

 

Finally, don't you see that the insurance industry as a whole has identified a way to rapidly increase the profitability of a sector off the back of this bill?

[Moosey]

Jackson's review started in 2007. He did not publish his final report until January 2010. Are you disputing the latter?

 

The MoJ commenced a formal consultation exercise in response to the report in Nove 2010. The consultation included changes to the original recommendations in the Jackson report. Are you disputing this?

 

Jackson pretty much damned the proposed changes. Are you disputing this?

 

The LAPSO bill is a Tory bill in response to the Nov 2010 consultation. Are you disputing this?

 

Finally, don't you see that the insurance industry as a whole has identified a way to rapidly increase the profitability of a sector off the back of this bill?

 

 

It's lunch; I'm off out shortly but...

To answer-

1. It was December 2009, but near enough.

2. There were changes, but they were not drastic and I don't agree that it's in any way political.

3. I don't agree that he "pretty much damned" the changes at all.

 

I will address 4 separately.

 

If the insurance industry had as much influence as you suggest, it certainly wouldn't be allowing the blanket ban on referral fees, which is how that part of the market makes money. It doesn't make money from policies, I can tell you that. I know this very well, and without giving financial information away, the insurance industry is not pleased that referral fees are to be banned.

 

I'd ask that you go look into that, and also, whilst you're at it, go look at Lord Carter's reforms, which were what started the whole slaughter of legal aid about 5 years ago.