Martin Kettle says Keir Starmer believes in the rule of law, and describes Suella Braverman as “the worst attorney general of modern times” (Does Starmer believe in anything, people ask, and now we know: his credo is the rule of law, 17 October). Why, then, is Starmer’s government appealing against the high court ruling that found Suella Braverman’s protest law to be illegal? Her move to push this through using secondary legislation was described in the House of Lords as “a constitutional outrage”.
What happened to the credo that led Starmer to assist the defendants in the McLibel case? What happened to the rule of law? What is happening to the right to protest?
Gordon Garrick
Nottingham
Martin Kettle says Keir Starmer’s administration reaffirms “the centrality of law to government and politics, domestically and internationally”. That sounds good, but the UK is still choosing which laws to obey. In 2021, a UN treaty entered into force banning the use, possession, testing and transfer of nuclear weapons. Seventy-three countries have ratified the treaty, but the UK has not. Any chance of Starmer sorting that out?
Caroline Westgate
Hexham, Northumberland
Keir Starmer’s ultimate belief may well be in the rule of law. This belief is greatly preferable to its absence, as the view of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and others that such rules are for the little people has shown us. But Starmer needs to think beyond mere rules. After all, he stuck to the declaration rules over gifts, and look where that got him. There are rules, and then there are values. Voters can sense the difference.
Rib Davis
Leyton, London
