I haven’t asked you for a judges view on the bill - not sure why you keep trying to adjust what's being asked?
Anyway, bit cheap to resort to undermining the evidence I’ve given you, but here are three more statements for you to completely ignore.https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/campaigns/consultation-responses/independent-review-of-administrative-law-call-for-evidence-law-society-response
The Law Society said it did not believe that there was a need for fundamental reform of judicial review. This was because there was evidence that judicial review is “working well and achieving its purpose”https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/uploads/assets/d0bf3966-9772-4205-81c63d3bb91cc188/Bar-Council-IRAL-response.pdf
The Bar Council of England and Wales rejected the suggestion in the call for evidence that there is a conflict between judicial review and the “proper and effective discharge of government functions”.
To the contrary, it described judicial review as a “critical mechanism” for securing proper and effective government functions.
Lord Reed of Allermuir, the President of the Supreme Court,
‘In response to the Prime Minister’s proposals for a constitution commission to examine the role of judicial review
, Lord Reed said:
Judges are very well aware of the risk of challenges being brought in what are political rather than legal grounds. They are repelling them and are careful to avoid straying into what are genuine political matters. When this is a matter that is to be considered it should not start from the premise that judges are eager to pronounce on political issues. The true position is actually quite the opposite.
As for your fathers advice, I don’t think waiting until the bill has been passed to protest it is a smart way to stop the bill being passed - the horse has bolted. I’m sure his advice stands up in plenty of other context but not sure what your logic is there.
First my dad's saying.
What I attempted to point out to you which you seemed to have missed the point of completely, is that there is a due process to follow before a decision is arrived at. By all means be involved in the process and state your case to be weighed and considered but the time for wailing is when the decision is made against you and not from the outset.
Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) once famously said "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" - meaning obviously that he had not died and all the fuss was over nothing that actually had happened!
Your additional quote from the Law Society - I refer you to my existing comments about the Law Society.
In reply to the Bar Council quote - I don't believe for one second that you've read the document you have taken the comment from, let alone understood it.
In simple terms - and as part of how the system works - which I keep referring you to (and which you clearly are ignorant of) the process of starting the task of translating the executives desires to create legislation is to invite all relevant interested parties to take part - the link below explains it clearly in respect of what we've been discussing on here -https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-administrative-law
The Bar Council's reply - and in particular it's key statement which you have quoted - refers specifically and almost exclusively to how JR's do and should work - in fact in the quote you show is actually EDITED and not a true reflection of what was actually stated
which was this -
7. In any event, the Bar Council rejects the apparent suggestion that there is a
conflict between judicial review and “proper and effective discharge of [government]
functions”.2 On the contrary, judicial review is a critical mechanism for securing the
“proper and effective discharge of [government] functions”. Review on
procedural/fairness grounds ensures that decisions with important effects on people’s
lives are taken only after they have been properly heard: decisions not based on fair
procedures will be worse decisions and will command less public acceptance. Review
on grounds of actual or apparent bias is a safeguard against favouritism and
corruption, and helps maintain public confidence that decisions with major financial
impacts are taken without bias. Review on rationality grounds ensures that decision
makers take their decisions on the basis of, and supported by, relevant evidence: that
leads to better decision-making. Review on vires grounds ensures that decisionmakers respect the limits on their powers placed by Parliament, and helps protect our
democracy – a safeguard of particular importance in the area of statutory instruments,
where huge volumes of legislation, making profoundly important policy changes, go
virtually unscrutinised by Parliament. And review on human rights grounds helps
protect those whose fundamental interests may, for various reasons, not have been
properly considered in the decision-making process, while ultimately allowing
Parliament the final say (a point which is, again, of particular importance in relation
to virtually unscrutinised statutory instruments). In all these respects, judicial review
– and wide access to judicial review – assists in ensuring “effective” and “proper”
discharge of government functions (reading “proper” here – as it should be read – as
including “accountable” and “democratic”).3
I absolutely agree with them and have said this from the very beginning.
What the quote DOES NOT ADDRESS is if JR's are now being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." which is part of the question being asked by IRAL
The nearest the Bar Council got to addressing that matter was by deliberately NOT ANSWERING IT - see Paragraphs 8 and 9 in your link above.
Finally Lord Reed's comments to the House of Lords Constitutional Committee way back in March 2020.
I draw your attention to the comments on the article reported in the Law Gazette which universally disagrees with him.
Impossible to know who these people are disagreeing with him but I'd bet a £1 to a 1p that these are all members of the judiciary - and if I'm right in that thinking, then there clearly was at that time a dissenting view that JR's are now being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." and which have since exponentially increased in that respect in the following two years to now.
Finally I would just like to add that even if you still continue to disagree with me (which of course I know you will) that I trust that maybe now you might be beginning to realise that the way the constitution works - in this case you found for yourself (or had pointed out to you I suspect) such things as the IRAL and the House of Lords Constitutional Committee and that not everything is done in the full glare of the press or on social media as you seem to think.