British Poltics: Is David Cameron a Conservative

[Paramonkey]

was it the sex scandal, its on the mind for some reason let me think its something Ive read it will come to me soon, what it was.

It was publicised by Max Clifford, I couldn’t find any references about the 1689 act in content I read when they sued him for libel.

They also settled out of court so the divisional ruling that the 1689 act didn’t apply still stands, as it wasn’t challenged.

[dreamer]

OMISSION OF SIGNIFICANT EVENT: On 18 July 1995 The Guardian applied to the High Court to have Hamilton's libel action ruled unconstitutional.  The newspaper cited the Bill of Rights of 1689 which states: "The freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament".

.
link . http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%204/page8.html new it was something to do with the Hamilton's

[Paramonkey]

On 18 July 1995

Dreamer, note the date, this is before the HRA 1998, and also the divisional court ruling which rejected the use of the 1689 bill due to subsequent legislation, which emphasises the lack of relevance of the 1689 bill in legal terms.

[dreamer]

It was just playing on the mind the 1689 act thanks for putting me right. used it my self in a litter case for my daughter, went to crown court lost the case.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Paramonkey Excuse me if im wrong, I have limited knowledge of the Political process. But from my observations government can change the constitution, and therefore the rights afforded to the public. At least with the HRA 1998 has law grounded in an external source, making it harder to manipulate. I personally think this would make the government more able to pass laws which may harm individual's rights. Perhaps you could explain what you mean? Which ones? Most of the laws I know which are in common practice are viable. Can I have a list of the "75%" of laws to which you are referring to judge your statement? Im having trouble getting up to anything near that number.

Yes, a government can make a change to the constitution. As we have no codified constitution, it is as simple as passing another piece of legislation. In fact, with a bill that is currently going through the house, it would not take even that. It will be within the ability of ministers to edit previous bills without the approval of Parliament. Police state here we come. With a codified constitution, it would be much, much more difficult for the government to change it, therefore far more difficult to threaten the rights of Britons.

It is impossible for government to give and take rights, however. Rights are not gifts of the state but, at least in England, an inheritance earned through the blood and sacrifices of our forefathers. Government merely recognises those rights in a legal capacity. Whether or not they recognise them however does not change the fact that you have them.

I am grateful that we have the HRA, however it is, as I have said, easily repealable or modified. Not only that, most of the "rights" are not, in fact, rights, as they have clauses that allow government to work around them.

If we have a fully elected Lords then we can also bestow them with powers, as the reason the Lords lost their powers was due to the fact they have no democratic mandate. The Lords would then be able to actually prevent dangerous, unlawful legislation to be passed.

Most certainly the legislation is viable in the sense that it is workable, but the question we need to ask is whethere they are lawful. By that I mean, whether the government is passing legislation it has any right to pass at all. For example, it is not within the remit of government to force "lads mags" to be put on the top shelf, even though a Labour backbencher has just proposed this. Fox hunting also is not within the governments jurisdiction. What this jurisdiction is was commonly understood up until WWI, that the business of government is to protect the rights of the British people. More and more we see legislation passed that is to do with the managing of affairs, interfering in our daily lives, something that government has no right to do. Therefore I would propose all laws that do not fall within the governments jurisdiction to be phased out over perhaps a 50 year period.

The main reasons, I believe, that we have had governments going beyond their jurisdiction is because we have no codified constitution, MP's have no respect for custom and the expansion of the voting franchise. Without a fixed constitution to define the role of government MP's have felt free to enact any piece of legislation that will protect their power, whether that be through centralisation of power or simple vote winning. I would never object to the expansion of the voting franchise (in fact I think it should be expanded to 16 year olds), so I would not suggest a withdrawal to past voting limitations. That leaves me with the option of supporting a rigid, codified constitution that will prevent government from acting outside the parametres of the law.

In addition, a new constitution would give an oppurtunity for the legislature to be seperated from the executive. It leaves the British people open to tyranny to have so much power concentrated at the hands of these people.