"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[ahinton]

Oh dear, you've got to feel sorry for poor Macaroon, on the very day that he announces that the next Tory government would dispense with the Human Rights Act, this has to happen ...

Moazzam Begg to be released as terror charges dropped

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29442623

Add within just two days of it, THIS has to happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29466113

So - to follow on from my previous post (and at the risk of some repetition, for which I apologise in advance) - we might now be facing the distinct possibility of no UK HRA and no membership of ECHR (or only a conveniently selective use of it). However, no one has yet come clean about Britain's possible future attitude to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the perhaps lesser known International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to each of which Britain is a signatory, each of which has far wider application and endorsement than merely those of Britain or Europe and each of which had its origins in the United Nations; might Britain decide to withdraw as signatory to either or both of these and, if so, what effect might that have on the future tenability - not to say credibility - of its UN membership?

The follow-up to such measures would almost certainly be the abolition of the Freedom of Information Act, the curtailing of the scope of the Data Protection Act, the termination of Legal Aid and the scrapping of Conditional Fee Agreements (colloquially known as "no win, no fee" ones).

In such a climate, "pariah state" status for Britain could surely not be so far away and the irony of Mr Cameron's current visit to Afghanistan would be lost on few besides the most inflexible of devotees. Could such a Britain remain an EU member or might the much vaunted 2017 referendum on its membership be rendered unnecessary because Britain might just get thrown out?

There's just one snag to the implementation of any or all of these plans - they'd require an outright Conservative majority at the next General Election and, whilst a week - never mind several months - is a long time in politics, the likelihood of such a victory seems ever more remote.

Grayling claims that "80-90% of the British" population would favour what's now being put forward as the Tory stance on ECHR membership; he does not, however, reveal the origin of this particulary unbelievable statistic.

Britain once has a major international reputation for justice; presumably, however, some complacent individuals appear to consider that such a reputation might be worth sacrificing on the altar of "justice only for the rich and only when it suits us to dispense it". Odd, though, wouldn't you say, that all of this is rising to the surface at a time when cuts to the police force are still being made...

[Dave2002]

Oh dear, you've got to feel sorry for poor Macaroon, on the very day that he announces that the next Tory government would dispense with the Human Rights Act, this has to happen ...

Moazzam Begg to be released as terror charges dropped

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29442623

I don't feel sorry for him. A very recent Daily Wail had the headline "At last a proper Tory Prime Minister" - whatever that means - as if that would somehow be "a good thing"! To me it signified someone trying the old tricks of conning the British public yet again in the hope that promising them the impossible would yet again persuade them to vote the Conservatives back in. At least, in respect of one wish, Jeremy Hunt had the decency to point out that one problem with the NHS re GPs is that there simply aren't enough to go round. This has been relevant to us locally as we have aspirations to build/have built new medical facilities. Recently we realised that even if we could get the money for buildings or refurbishment, that we would not be able to staff them as there just aren't enough doctors, and of course some of the older ones are retiring with little hope of immediate replacement.

At a general level the financial and tax proposals are barking mad, and IMO totally unworkable.

I didn't know until now about any proposals to abandon ECHR, but that, and other proposals would likely be a very retrograde step.

PS: I can't find the front page Of the DW with the headline I mentioned, but I' sure I saw it in a shop or garage. Perhaps there were several editions.

[amateur51]

I don't feel sorry for him. A very recent Daily Wail had the headline "At last a proper Tory Prime Minister" - whatever that means - as if that would somehow be "a good thing"! To me it signified someone trying the old tricks of conning the British public yet again in the hope that promising them the impossible would yet again persuade them to vote the Conservatives back in. At least, in respect of one wish, Jeremy Hunt had the decency to point out that one problem with the NHS re GPs is that there simply aren't enough to go round. This has been relevant to us locally as we have aspirations to build/have built new medical facilities. reecently we realised that even if we could get the money for buildings or refurbishment, that we would not be able to staff them as there just aren't enough doctors, and of course some of the older ones are retiring with little hope of immediate replacement.

At a general level the financial and tax proposals are barking mad, and IMO totally unworkable.

I didn't know until now about any proposals to abandon ECHR, but that, and other proposals would likely be a very retrograde step.

PS: I can't find the front page with the headline I mentioned, but I' sure I saw it in a shop or garage. Perhaps there were several editions.

Has it occurred to the homeopathy-friendly Sec of State for Health that refugee GPs offer a contribution to the NHS's shortage, fully -trained (often in Russia), speakers of British community languages, keen to work to establish their lives in their new country as contributing citizens?

I've serviced a small grant-making committee working with such people, seeking funds to help them to pass the exams both medical and English comprehension that it is deemed that they will need in order to practice safely in UK. so it's possible, there are a pool of such doctors ready to rolls, so let's get on with it.

I recall talking to one man who had worked as an Accident & Emergency surgeon in Afghanistan. When he saw on the nightly news the pictures of wounded British soldiers he phoned up Downing Street to offer his services if they would fly him out there. "It's the least I can do in return" he told me. His details were taken but no return phone call was ever forthcoming. Such attitudes need to change.

[Dave2002]

Today the DW (Daily Wail) has the headline "End of human rights farce" while the DE (Daily Express) has "Human rights madness to end." Madness IMO. I am generally in favour of the human rights legislation.

Oddly, also, in the USA some, perhaps many, of the rabid NRA supporters are not (or claim not to be) particularly interested in defending themselves (i.e wounding or killing) the odd larcenist or attacker, but say they want to be able to defend theimselves against their government - should it go bad. While the notion of a bunch of NRA guys "defending" themselves, even with automatic weapons againt the might of the US police forces, and army, navy and air force seems farcical, they think they have a right to maintain their liberty against allcomers, including any government which attempts to impose itself on them, or take away their "rights."

There are undoubtedly a few cases which are very grey, but in general I think we should maintain the position on freedom and human rights. The US is also (apparently) a bit better on prisoners, except for Guantanamo, as it is in theory public knowledge as to who is in prison in the US. In the UK only people who "have a legitimate interest" are allowed to know who is in prison. This means that in the UK people could possibly "disappear" and hardly anyone would know. There are good and bad things about these policies on each side of the Atlantic.

[Dave2002]

Dominic Grieve, MP for Beaconsfield and former Attorney General, was recently interviewed for BBC News. He is a Conservative MP, but seems to have very sensible views, and is broadly in favour of keeping the ECHR. I would have much less difficulty supporting people like him than those who grab headlines in tabloid newpapers. Not all Conservatives are nasty!

Not that it matters though, the Conservatives are very unlikely to get my vote, and they probably don't care anyway.

[ahinton]

Dominic Grieve, MP for Beaconsfield and former Attorney General, was recently interviewed for BBC News. He is a Conservative MP, but seems to have very sensible views, and is broadly in favour of keeping the ECHR. I would have much less difficulty supporting people like him than those who grab headlines in tabloid newpapers. Not all Conservatives are nasty!

Not that it matters though, the Conservatives are very unlikely to get my vote, and they probably don't care anyway.

I agree with you about Grieve. The issue for me would be twofold. Firstly, my MP (who is not only a Conservative but has published a book entitled Compassionate Conservatism) is against the abolition of UK's own HRA and the selective application of its membership of ECHR (as recommended by Grayling) and, having persuaded Mr Cameron against such measures in the lead up to the last Election, he might well try to do so again; secondly, I am aware of a number of traditional Labour voters and even UKIP sympathisers in my constitutency whose respect for that MP, his achievements and his dedication is so great that they would vote Conservative anyway.

As to the party itself, it seems to be on a mission to kick as many own goals as possible at present; more cuts including to state benefits, abolishing UK HRA, severing or at the very least reducing connections with ECHR, inviting defections and the rest is hardly likely to do it favours or even enable it to form a coalition if it can't achieve an outright majority. Much could change over the next few months, of course, but I would not be at all surprised were the outcome of the next General Election to be so hung a Parliament that the formation of any coalition would be extremely difficult and might even have to involve more than two parties - in other words, any government that might finally emerge from such a scenario would inevitably look to be very weak and unstable indeed.

[Dave2002]

Much could change over the next few months, of course, but I would be not at all surprised were the outcome of the next General Election to be so hung a Parliament that the formation of any coalition would be extremely difficult and might have to involve more than two parties - in other words, any government that might finally emerge from such a scenario wold inevitably be very weak and unstable indeed.

What would happen to the recent innovation of fixed year terms if coalitions really do fall apart?

I fear that the Conservatives might actually win. Re fixed terms - not a bad idea, but 4 years is long enough.

[ahinton]

What would happen to the recent innovation of fixed year terms if coalitions really do fall apart?

I fear that the Conservatives might actually win. Re fixed terms - not a bad idea, but 4 years is long enough.

I've no idea, but whilst the present coalition hasn't quite fallen apart and the five-year term might well run to its increasingly bitter end without that happening on this occasion but, as I mentioned, I'd be astonished if any party were to "win" next time around; UKIP, although it has no MPs at present, may well end up with a few but their principal effect will be to muddy the waters for all the others and, should the LibDems pull themselves out of their currently parlous position to any material extent, it really might end up as the nearest that we've ever had to a four-party race with the Greens and some also-ran minorities merely adding a little seasoning to the already indecisive havoc. Unless the Tories change their stance on human rights, the LibDems will almost certainly refuse to agree to forming another coalition with them. If the LibDems think that they might stand a chance of forming a coalition with Labour, their credibility will fall once more as a party prepared to act as turncoat when it suits them and, in any case, the position of the Labour party looks far from strong right now. Clearly, neither the LibDems nor UKIP nor the Greens nor any other minority party will be able to form a majority government, but their combined presence seems likely not only to make it well-nigh impossible for the Tories or Labour to do so but also to risk kicking the chances of any workable two-party coalition into touch - so what then?

[Dave2002]

So it's not quite "more of the same" in your opinion, then! Interesting times!

[ahinton]

So it's not quite "more of the same" in your opinion, then! Interesting times!

Well, sadly, it might indeed risk being "more of the same" except that no single political party is likely to be empowered to ensure that it is so under its own jurisdiction; "more of the same" in part suggests that it might not matter who's in charge (or not) because the difference between the potential alternatives are as small as they appear to be.

"Interesting times", possibly; worrying ones, undoubtedly.

[Serial_Apologist]

Re fixed terms - not a bad idea, but 4 years is long enough.

I would agree, but shorter electoral periods would be even more reflective of the short termism that has become the global market's imprimatur on company planning arrangements than what we have right now, and this in turn shapes electoral strategemising by all sides similarly, as if encouragement wasn't already enough.

[Dave2002]

I would agree, but shorter electoral periods would be even more reflective of the short termism that has become the global market's imprimatur on company planning arrangements than what we have right now, and this in turn shapes electoral strategemising by all sides similarly, as if encouragement wasn't already enough.

So what would you have instead? A Soviet style 10 or 25 year plan instead perhaps? They worked really well : lol :

[ahinton]

So what would you have instead? A Soviet style 10 or 25 year plan instead perhaps? They worked really well : lol :

As long as any plan is such that it cannot possibly be seen through during what might be described as a reasonable legth term of office for any government - 2, 3, 4, 5 or however many years - there will never be a "correct" or "appropriate" duration for a governmental term of office; S_A's right about the risk of short-termism that would likely arise all too often were terms of office shorter than, say, 3 years to pertain but, as you say, if a term's too long, matters can either risk going stale and complacent or a régime might be established that would become too difficult to dislodge and which can wreak havoc in the certain knowledge that it won't be thrown out for quite some time. So - perhaps the right answer here is that there's no right answer!

In any event, if no one political party can form a majority government and if it becomes improbably difficult for a two-party coalition to agree to form one or even be able to achieve the overall majority to enable it to form one, arguments about appropriate durations of terms of governmental office might be forced to give way to yet more pressing ones about how to form a majority government in the first place.

OK, if the LibDems continue to slide between now and next May, it'll largely be a two-and-abit-party contest seasoned by a handful of minority also-rans but, should UKIP even manage to secure as many as 30 seats (which would still be less than 5% representation in numerical terms) and the LibDems gain none but lose few, it could upset the apple cart quite considerably; who'd want to try to form a coalition with UKIP? and what's the chance that UKIP wouldn't want to go into coalition with any other party anyway?

[amateur51]

So it's not quite "more of the same" in your opinion, then! Interesting times!

Of course, one might argue that given the state of the economy, a new war, The NHS tottering, discontent over EU membership, the 2015 General Election might be one that Labour might not want to win :insouciantwhistleything:

[Dave2002]

Of course, one might argue that given the state of the economy, a new war, The NHS tottering, discontent over EU membership, the 2015 General Election might be one that Labour might not want to win :insouciantwhistleything:

Fair point. I'm not sure about the notion that a party should not try to win because it may stoke up longer term problems for itself, but of course it's an allowed strategy. I "like" the latest claims from the Tories (e.g Gove, on Any Questions today) that they are now in favour of giving tax breaks to poorer people, raising tax allowances, to get "poorer people out of paying tax." As I recall, these measures were opposed by them when the Lib Dems suggested them, but now they claim them as their own idea! Hey ho - politicians eh!