Welcome to this weeks round-up – an (almost) ‘David Davis / 42-day’ free zone. As of next week I’m going to drop the classification between left & right – I always anticipated this causing problems and I’ve actually been contacted by some organisations with a polite request to classify them differently.
While some groups like Compass and the ASI can be easily identified with left or right, many others such as the Kings Fund, Theos etc. are harder to align and there’s a strong case that it diminishes the work of them all to assign them such blunt political labels. I trust none of my readers as so blindly partisan as to only read one part of the update anyway. In the weeks ahead I’ll look at a more meaningful way of organising the update, perhaps into reports & publications, briefings & articles, events etc.
As ever please flag anything worthy I might have missed.
| Post to del.icio.us |
As always, a great round-up.
Thanks Liam.
“…A written constitution could entrench our historic liberties and take them above the fray of party politics. Although it runs counter to the traditional line of conservative thinking, it is a possibility that must not be dismissed out of instinctive unease, but must be taken seriously as a modern means to protect an ancient heritage” ~ Centre for Policy Studies daily blog
This is what pisses me off. So the Tories will be the ones who enshrine our liberties, while all the time taking shots at the Human Rights Act?
Do they care about inherent human rights, or not?
Well the Tory argument is (if I remember rightly) that they believe the ECHR covers everything that needs covering and that for some reason the HRA simply provides more human rights for British criminals. I don’t understand the argument, but it’s not one that says human rights are pointless or unnecessary.
Yeah the ECHR
Errrr, isn’t the ECHR supposed to protect you from excessive actions by the state?
Ok, it seems to have been poorly interpreted by British courts at times, but it remains an important protection. Surely there is some clause in the ECHR that can would limit excessive detention without charge… Say to 14-days?
) I know, it would be been used by now.
Thanks Aaron. Niether Tories nor Labour have a blemish-free record when it comes to the protection or advance of liberties.
Arguably the tradition more closely associated with limiting the power of the state is the right but that tradition is sullied because social conservatives were happy to tell people who they could & couldn’t shag etc. undermining notions of liberty. It’s reasonable enough to imagine a more liberal Tory party (like the one we have now) doing more for personal liberty than a Labour party with authoritarian instincts. There’s a bit of the ‘only Nixon can go to China’ going on here as well….
As far as I’m aware no-one has actually challenged the detention period through ECHR, but I am well aware I could be wrong.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
| 7 Comments 18 Comments 15 Comments 19 Comments 9 Comments 26 Comments 56 Comments 67 Comments 2 Comments 47 Comments | LATEST COMMENTS » wtf posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Lee Griffin posted on Teenage girls have sex. Get over it. » Bob B posted on Teenage girls have sex. Get over it. » Cable’s Time Is Now « The Blog posted on Poll: voters don't rate Osborne » Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Lee Griffin posted on Teenage girls have sex. Get over it. » Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Left Outside posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Gwyn posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Gwyn posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Gwyn posted on Teenage girls have sex. Get over it. » Alex posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election » Shuggy posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election Last 50 // Comments feed |