ajm

Sorry Pete.... I know its indulgent but I couldn't resist!

GC8

It surprises me; legislation like this is something that youd traditionally expect from a right of centre party rather than a left of centre one. It looks as though it will end up being forced past the second chamber again as fox hunting legislation was; underminding the democratic process further.

Simon

unclebuck

Clearly they are attempting to.

Forunately there is The House Of Lords to stop them. Worthy of particular praise are the Labour peers who are voting against the government.

No wonder Blair and co. want it banned.

unclebuck

Loks like 'Pete' has gone off on a huff because his thread was deleted.

coolangatta

No. It`s pretty obvious to any half bake that that is not the case.

But who am I to comment as I`m non resident so I don`t care anyway.

GC8

You have to have a second chamber though; I suppose the assumption is that the politcal makeup of the second chamber will mirror that of the commons thereby allowing all laws to pass freely. The function of the second house is to ensure that only appropriate legislation is passed into law and both Tory and Labour peers along with the large number on the cross benches have always taken this responsibility extremely seriously. Democracy seems to be going down the ****ter; although Id assumed that the Bill of Rights which cant be repealed by parliament, provided for the non elected second house, so we'll see.

Simon

ajm

Yeah, I felt a bit guilty about that, which is why I thought we could have another go at debating the issue, albeit under "new management"

Belmondo

Yes it is. We have already lost the right to silence, which is the corner stone of Law in the rest of the civilised world.

GC8

The Conservatives were responsible for that, however the right to trial by jury is of far greater importance and Derry Irvine (former Lord Chancellor) was determined to remove this for the greater number of cases!

I suppose that some of the loss of liberty comes from the Labour partys need to raise revenue without direct income taxation as raising this will make them unelectable. People need to understand that the same kit used to prevent speeding will also be used to charge us to drive on the roads that, collectively, we already own. Its frightening isnt it?

coolangatta

Strange then, is it not, that many people in the UK were rubbing their hands at the prospect of the abolition of the House of Lords.
The same people now appear to be saying that the Lords will be their saviour.
Confused ???

ajm

I certainly never rubbed my hands at the thought of abolishing the house of Lords. I think those you speak of were the ones who were fooled by Labour and have now seen the light!

GC8

I dont think that the house of lords can be abolished; irrespective of the political will or the fit of pique which is what brought this intent about in the first place.

I have been a firm supporter of the house of lords and I will remain so; they moderate the house of commons irrespective of the political persuasion of the goverment and that must be a good thing.

Simon

GC8

In answer to your question Alex; I doubt that the governments intention is to deprive you or I of our freedom; however they need to accept that whilst the short term benefit may be in our favour, ultimately we will all lose out. Unsound legislation setting dangerous precedents isnt justified by a short term gain.

Simon

GC8

Btw; Id welcome PSlewis's input to this thread if he could manage to put an eloquent argument and avoid deriding averone who doesnt agree and then calling them names.

coolangatta

I personally believe that any assembly with political influence, predominantly built on privilege rather than a rightful mandate, is, or could be, dangerous.
If we were advocating the same in Iraq right now, most would be horrified.

MJW

The House of Lords is made up of non-democratically elected persons. It has also been unable to stop any House of Commons legislation since 1911. All they can do is delay it and make recommendations for change.

CrisPDuk

Would you rather have an upper house similar to that in the US where the members are chosen purely based upon wo greased whose palm. I personally believe that our house of lords is the last bastion of common sense in our political establishment, and BLiar & co want rid of it for that reason

moses

it was sad they released abu qatada he should be sent back to where he came from

Suresh

In case anyone forgets what the terror issue is all about..

**warning this is cctv footage of two Madrid blasts on 11-03-2004. Do not open if easily shocked**

http://www.internetopina.com/hosting/neo/atocha-11m.wmv

Suresh

I thought you *were* describing the House of Lords there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3296429.stm
Sir Stanley Kalms, Irvine Laidlaw and Leonard Steinberg have been promised peerages, The Times newspaper reports. Between them the three have donated £2.3m to the Tories since 2001.

RobJenks

These individuals apparently pose a threat to the UK.
Why are they not immediately expelled from Britain?
I see them having no rights -they choose to follow activities that undermine our way of life , as far as I'm concerned that means they forfeit all rights afforded to the rest of us.In these dangerous times extreme measures are needed to assure the safety of 99.9999% of the population .
Foreigners rights are secondary .
Take them to Heathrow , break their legs and fly them to where they came from-problem solved.

Leslie

The House of Lords is our safety net as it was designed to be in the first place, and it has proved its worth this time for sure, for altruistic reasons.

PSL does not give the impression that he can follow a reasoned argument.

Les

blueone

There is one constant in our political system which needs to change. It's the party system. If we was to rid ourselves of this outdated leech on society then we would see politicians of the people for the people once more. Without party loyalty due to wanting career advancement, the incentive would be removed to vote any other way than how you feel was in the best interest of your electorate and democracy itself.
It is absurd to think that in this time of high speed communication and mass transit systems that we need the status quo to remain. An overhaul of the two chambers is long overdue, the first thing I would do would be remove the power that these clubs hold over us all.
This is the radical panacea for democracy and our society that is so desperately needed. I'm not advocating a communist state with one party I am proposing that all political partys be banned. That we have independant MP's that come from within the communitys they represent. All their funding for election campaigns would be state derived, ruling out cash for favours.
It has been a long time since a radical step has been taken in the political arena. The question is will any politicians be brave enough to admit that this is what is needed by us and the World at large. I doubt it very much as most of the current ones have risen to their position under the current system and the last thing they are likely to advocate is the abolishment of what granted them their privilidge position in the first place.

Leslie

If that came about blueone, I reckon that it would not be long before MP's would start to associate with others of the same views and club together to form a coalition which would eventually become a political party-and so on!

We are now in the position where anyone in this country who upsets the established government can be put under control orders with no apparent evidence or charge. Even the promised examination of this law in 12 month's time would not guarantee release. This has gone a long long way to undermine our civil liberties and I fear for the future.

Les

ajm

*Bump* for Pete to have his say.... assuming he has finished sulking....

blueone

I hear what you are saying about a coalition but there must be a better way than what we have at the moment. I can't think for the life of me what other option exists to take power from the clubs and give it back to the people.
My system would be simple, no more than two consecitive terms served by any MP, cabinet minister or PM. State funding of campainge funds, for prospective MP's from within the community when there is an election.
Each MP in their campaigne manifesto would put forward their own proposed bills for the coming parliament. etc etc etc

The danger now is not terrorism at all. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest, that it is in fact an orchastrated red herring, to enable these draconian measures to be bought about. So that the real issue of our participation in an EU state, when a refurendum comes in the next term, can be steamrolled by locking up without trial those amoung us who are most against an EU superstate. They have virtually removed the right to own any sort of firearm in the UK, and they have removed the right to trial by jury, the right to gather in a group, the right to silence and now the right to trial itself. People should make no mistake when the car tracking and charging system is fully functional they will control every aspect of us and our ability to say NO to more injustice and loss of liberty.

Leslie

Yes blueone, you are well up with what is happening alright. Just hope the penny drops with enough of the electorate as well!

Les

2000TLondon

The way I see it is the general population loses nothing from this legislation. If you are honest and law-abiding, it shouldn't matter. It's not the government taking away our liberites, "privacy" and rights, they are responding to a threat.

Leslie

If that is how you see it 2000TL etc. then you should think about what is likely to happen in the future with this law on the statute books and the government in power wanting to suppress any significant criticism or the like. Think back to what happened in the old USSR.

Why do you think the legal protections we had before were in place for some 800 years?

You cannot afford to be that naive when you are talking about the legal protection of our personal liberty. Saying that all you need to do is to agree with all that our leaders tell us without question and do nothing that they disapprove of is a very quick way to living in a police state where you are told just how to live your life in every conceivable aspect.

That is an absolute gift to an authoritarian government and life for the rest of us would be truly awful.

Les

2000TLondon

I don't see how people can be against the intelligence and security services being given more powers to protect the nation..... I find it very hard to believe that any of us on this forum will be hindered in our day to day lives by this new legislation..... IMO

I don't think I'm naive, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria and the conspiracies......