From one perspective, having a stand-up row with an organisation meant to advise the government on a key policy area is a bit unseemly. But it is fair to say that Downing Street is ready – you could even say happy – to take on the Sentencing Council.
The row over a review of sentencing guidelines for England and Wales escalated on Friday after the Sentencing Council rejected government demands that it U-turn over a plan for judges to take account of pre-sentence reports before jailing people from ethnic or religious minorities.
The council says the plan, which would also cover young adults, abuse survivors and pregnant women, is merely to provide context for judges, and that No 10’s worries about “two-tier” justice misunderstands the idea.
This response did not impress Keir Starmer, who echoed the sentiments of his justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in warning that this would not be allowed to stand and “all options are on the table”. This could involve legislation, No 10 added, to override or even curtail the council’s powers.
No one doubts that the English and Welsh criminal justice system appears institutionally unfair to people from minority ethnic backgrounds. That was, at least, the verdict in 2017 from a review by David Lammy, then a Labour backbencher, now foreign secretary.
There is little suggestion that things have changed much since. So why the sudden vehemence from ministers? There are a few reasons.
The first is that government insiders say the Sentencing Council is approaching the issue the wrong way and they argue that the causes of disparity in the judicial system are unclear.
Lammy’s report, they say, pointed more towards issues such as greater arrest rates for people from some backgrounds, and a greater likelihood they would plead guilty and thus seek a lower sentence.
Mahmood’s original letter to the council this month argued with some passion that a sentencing system that appeared to treat people differently was not an answer, and that she as a Muslim woman would not feel comfortable with such a plan.
This is all genuinely felt, with officials arguing also that any significant change to redress institutional biases should originate with elected politicians and not a quango, even one set up to carry out such tasks.
But there is, inevitably, more to it. While government insiders push back against the idea that they are leaning in, however gently, to a culture war against equalities efforts in the second Trump era, they are also very aware of the political resonance of accusations about “two-tier Keir” from the Conservatives and Reform UK.
Robert Jenrick, the populist-minded shadow justice secretary, has already been all over the airwaves saying this, despite the Sentencing Council being independent, the government opposing the changes, and the original review having been commissioned under the Conservatives.
Similarly, with Labour facing repeated if not necessarily fair criticism of being in hock to or bullied by the legal system over everything from the Chagos Islands to immigration, a very public disagreement with an organisation mainly comprising judges and KCs might be seen as having its benefits.
There is, however, also a need to tread carefully or risk reinforcing the impression that some in No 10 are more concerned about the preconceptions of Reform-minded voters than any worries among more progressive types.
Already this week the government opted to endorse the decision of the Conservative-established Office for Students to heavily fine Sussex University over a free speech case many in academia thought was more nuanced than billed, prompting concern from the sector.
That can be the peril of dipping a toe into culture wars, or a willingness to be seen that you are: the tide can be strong and unpredictable, and might sweep you away.
