Where can I sign up to join the rebellion?

Although I was not aware that Theresa May was in fact a Vogon, I was quite well aware that Pickles was a Sontaran – cover up his probic vent someone please!

Whilst they may regard insults hurled from the left as a badge of honour, in fact this attitude draws attention to the fact they are still the nasty party, and have not been de-toxified.

Group Marshall Pickles is of course working to those blue collar Tories who share the central Tory ethic of personal responsibility being something others must pursue, and for the self to exploir

@ 2:

“Whilst they may regard insults hurled from the left as a badge of honour, in fact this attitude draws attention to the fact they are still the nasty party, and have not been de-toxified.”

So what, not getting upset about childish mud-slinging is a sign of moral inferiority?

not at all – actually, I am just keen to see Theresa May’s “We are the Nasty Party” conference line quoted back at her, to remind that it as valid as it ever was. The way cabinet members look upon the views of others (whether built out of reasoned argument, childish mudslinging, or economic or environmental desparation) with equal distain is central their flawed ideaology. We have a government that listens as well as the discredited Neo-cons in the Bush regime. And who likewise are as self-serving.

The reptilian metaphor is well understood by many, and of course the point about Pickles having a probic vent is just a modern day take on saying he has an achilles’ heel.

@ 4:

“actually, I am just keen to see Theresa May’s “We are the Nasty Party” conference line quoted back at her, to remind that it as valid as it ever was.”

I think it was “We are *seen as* the Nasty Party”, actually, which isn’t the same thing at all.

Thresha May has pledged that a new Bill of Rights will fill up the void left from the welcome repeal of the Human Rights Act. What I’d like to know is whether the Bill of Rights will take the step of banning Extraordinary Rendition in which, by reports, British intelligence services were deeply implicated when Blair was PM:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MI29Ad01.html

Of course, regular doses of torture or the like applied to prisoners in Britain would be probably be an effective means for saving on the costs of maintaining Britain’s large per capita prison population as well as creating incentives to reduce the high rate of reoffending. Singapore was mentioned in earlier threads here on crime and punishment for its exemplary low crime rate but no one mentioned the contribution that judicial sentences there to caning made to maintaining that low crime rate.

I’m sure the Conservative conference would be pleased to learn of the latest thinking in the party on these and related matters.

The full Theresa May original: “Yes, we’ve made progress, but let’s not kid ourselves. There’s a way to go before we can return to government. There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies, You know what some people call us: the Nasty Party.”

It’s often misused as a reference to campaigning tactics, but in its original context it meant appealing to a very narrow section of society.

Oh sure, a “bill of rights” at some future time, and in the meantime you can crack down on all those pesky peasants who want things like education and health services, rights guaranteed in the HRA.

Not to mention the minor fact that the ECHR is VERY British…Britain was the driving force behind it. That the Tories are turning their back on it now speaks of their ethical base which isn’t even caught up to last century, let alone this one.

Oh right! Because Britain and the British are so awful they can only have rights for their people if other people from other countries dictate them for them.

Because of course a just British bill of rights would be awful and foolish.

I mean how could terrorist scum driven to kill British people ever get to get out of prison early and/or stay in the country they pledge to destroy without that wonderful…Europe dictated only of course…bill of rights.

That Britain is told it has no morals or freedoms without Europe ensuring we have them…a Europe that Britain lost everything in defending against such Fascist thinking and dictating…is bad enough, but when some Britons agree with such an insult the stench becomes remarkable indeed!

I give daily thanks to the Germans for saving us from being the barbaric and vile country that, were we allowed to rule ourselves, we would become.

Not much sadder than a sermon trying to be funny is there .

@9 – Yes, withdrawing from treaties which Britain was extremely engaged in creating, and which set a benchmark for Human rights would be extremely awful and foolish.

Every right the British people take for granted is spelled out there, and a “renegotiation” of those will lead to many of our fundamental rights being smashed in the name of big business, just as everything else has…I can quite see why it’s intolerable to your Tory elitist sentiments.

It’s quite correct to say that both the ECHR and the EU, entirely different institutions, have done far more to safeguard the rights of the British people in the last few decades than Westminster. That you want to turn the lights of civilisation off in this country is no surprise to any serious student of history.

You want to rip away over a century of hard-won rights for the British people, using the fig leaf of Security Theatre to cover it. But, you cry, it’s only the “undesirables” who’ll lose out. Well, the moment you start defining people as undesirables you’re going down the well worn path of national socialism and social darwinism.

The ECHR was largely written by Britain. If there is a problem, it’s with the way the judges in this country *interpret* the ECHR, and that can be adjusted without taking that dark right turn.

This is a satirical article.

That clicking noise you can hear is Jonathan Swift revolving in his grave……..

Is meant to be lacerating satire? It comes off as ineffectual juvenile sneering.

6. Bob B

TWhat I’d like to know is whether the Bill of Rights will take the step of banning Extraordinary Rendition in which, by reports, British intelligence services were deeply implicated when Blair was PM

I hope not. Why should it? There is nothing wrong with rendition in and of itself. It is hard to think of how to phrase the law to exclude Extraordinary Rendition from the normal sort. There is no need at all, imo, for a Bill of Rights.

Singapore was mentioned in earlier threads here on crime and punishment for its exemplary low crime rate but no one mentioned the contribution that judicial sentences there to caning made to maintaining that low crime rate.

And so the question has to be asked – if you think caning would reduce crime and recidivism, why don’t you support it? Is prison rape better than caning?

However others are way ahead of you:

http://harpers.org/archive/2011/07/hbc-90008153

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/

8. Leon Wolfson

Oh sure, a “bill of rights” at some future time, and in the meantime you can crack down on all those pesky peasants who want things like education and health services, rights guaranteed in the HRA.

Yeah, because without the HRA there would be no healthcare or education for the poor in Britain.

Not to mention the minor fact that the ECHR is VERY British…Britain was the driving force behind it.

But the spirit in which it is being used and interpreted is alien to the British legal tradition and hence it has to go. Although that would only be a first step as we would still have to get rid of those judges who do not understand what their proper role in a democracy is.

12. Leon Wolfson

It’s quite correct to say that both the ECHR and the EU, entirely different institutions, have done far more to safeguard the rights of the British people in the last few decades than Westminster.

Now that is satire.

Leon I have , on a previous thread , explained why the ECHR is not optional and is intimately connected to the protectionist Economic threat of the EU .( See prisons thread) You are quite wrong to go on spreading this fiction of separation.
The often rolled out fact that British lawyers were, apparently involved in drafting the Human Rights Act is quite absurd . The entire Euro sceptic case is based on the assertion that the establishment of the country has betrayed the country, not that they did not.
The question is not whether individuals should have rights or not, this country has its own long tradition of rights and duties. The question is whether a super nation la unmandated Napoleonic layer of law, in conflict with our traditions, is a good and useful thing .Most feel it is not , for example , it forces us to give rights to prisoners and worsen the lure of free and easy UK welfare.

I loved this. Shall dig out my intergalactic lizard atomiser……..

In related news, George Osbourne has announced drastic cuts to hope.

Yes, withdrawing from treaties which Britain was extremely engaged in creating, and which set a benchmark for Human rights would be extremely awful and foolish.

No-one’s suggesting derogating from the EDHR. We signed up to that in 1947, and indeed as everyone above points out, assisted in drafting it. Somehow, we managed for fifty years without directly lifting the text of a values based declaration into UK statutory law – because the principles and values enshrined in the Declaration were already contained within UK law.

There are reasons for wanting to repeal the HRA and replace it with a different sort of human rights law, and they are not because Tories are lizards, or because they hate the poor. This sort of thinking really is childish anti-intellectualism at its very worst.

Look at him he’s heading for that small conference.
That’s no conference it’s a Conservative gathering
It’s too big to be a Conservative gathering!
I have a very bad feeling about this.

Agree with that Tim , there is an article in the Times today about how the left seem to be reduced to childish name calling. You wonder, now the prospect of spending more is closed, if that is the last point of the left.
Something similar happened when the planned economy, ( their objective for most of the 20th century) became terminally discredited . At that point the only things that seemed to matter were peripheral subjects like Fox Hunting and Multi Culturalism .

21
The planned economy became terminally discredited because it evolved from slow growning socialism to neo-liberalism, there is no observable difference btw, it just became apparent to a certain class that it was more beneficial to them rather than the working-class.
We have been importing products from the rest of the globe for hundreds of years, Chinese take-aways overtook fish and chips as the best seller years ago, and tea became our national drink and yet you have a problem with multi-culturalism.
It’s also telling that you also have a problem with fox-hunting (the ban) nothing like tearing-apart an animal for the sake of it.

There seems to have been a mass sense of humour failure. No wonder many normal people view political types with a wary eye.

23 – I might not be at my most receptive on a Monday morning, but isn’t the main reason for the sense of humour failure the fact that the OP… just wasn’t very funny?

Steve – Don`t understand your first paragraph at all.

On multiculturalism as a state sponsored project I don`t think it has been very helpful personally. Take your view of imported aspects of our lives .The English Language has imported most of the French vocabulary, often twice, over the centuries. That is not the same as encouraging French speaking in school as an equally valid means of communication. You see ,most of us would not understand eachother. Hint hint
So organic evolution of an idemntity yes ,actually denying any unified identity exists, no…but its a luxury coffee table subject anyway as is Fox hunting . I was busy suffocating innocent Marine life this w/e btw ( its called fishing ) no doubt this barbaric practice will soon be banned as well. Pity .

@TimJ #19:

No-one’s suggesting derogating from the EDHR. We signed up to that in 1947, and indeed as everyone above points out, assisted in drafting it. Somehow, we managed for fifty years without directly lifting the text of a values based declaration into UK statutory law – because the principles and values enshrined in the Declaration were already contained within UK law.

And the reason why we repatriated the Convention? A couple of reasons. One was to bring it home, in both senses, to Government. Another? Because of people who said that:

“But the spirit in which it is being used and interpreted is alien to the British legal tradition and hence it has to go.” (SMFS #15 above)

Funnily enough, they’re still saying it. So is it really true that no-one is calling for us to withdraw from the ECHR?

As for this:

“Although that would only be a first step as we would still have to get rid of those judges who do not understand what their proper role in a democracy is.” (SMFS #15)

Their proper role is to interpret and apply the law passed by Parliament; which, oddly enough, is what they have been doing.

The Human Rights Act was deliberately set up so that legislation could not be struck down; if Parliament has legislated by statute, all that the High Court can do, if it cannot construe the law in a way compatible with the Act, is declare that the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

If, however, the legislation is delegated (as is increasingly the case nowadays), then the Court will (as with statutory law) seek to construe it in a way compatible with the HRA; if it cannot, then it will assess whether the incompatibility is mandated by the primary legislation. If not, then any public body acting in accordance with that secondary legislation will be acting unlawfully and anya ct or decision of the authority struck down.

If, however, the incompatibility is so mandated, then the Court is, again, limited to a declaration of incompatibility; the public authority acting under the legislation will have a defence to the claim that it is acting unlawfully.

All of this is set out in the Act; which the courts are applying, just as is their proper role in a democracy.

(BTW, it’s ECHR).

We look forward to the Conservative Party Conference and ask what will make David Cameron implement a new plan to save the economy – the answer, sadly, is that he will only u-turn if Ed Miliband makes a resurgence in the polls.

Follow the link:
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2011/10/conservative-conference-special-why-cameron-wont-u-turn-on-the-economy/

Thresha May has pledged that a new Bill of Rights will fill up the void left from the welcome repeal of the Human Rights Act. What I’d like to know is whether the Bill of Rights will take the step of banning Extraordinary Rendition in which, by reports, British intelligence services were deeply implicated when Blair was PM:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MI29Ad01.html

Quite. Its fair enough to castigate the Tories for trying to withdraw from the Human Rights Act but I’m not sure Labour has the moral highground here.

What’s worse, a government which wants to withdraw from the HRA or a government which signed up to it and then colluded with torture, detention without trial, and the imprisonment of the children of asylum seekers?

Tim J,

23 – I might not be at my most receptive on a Monday morning, but isn’t the main reason for the sense of humour failure the fact that the OP… just wasn’t very funny?

Agreed.

steveb,

It’s also telling that you also have a problem with fox-hunting (the ban) nothing like tearing-apart an animal for the sake of it.

C’mon, it was given an incredible amount of Parliamentary time, given the other things going on in the world.

Robin is that the European Charter of Human Rights ? Wasn`t that the thing that was part of the proposed constitution that was rejected ?
How then does it have any legality ?
God knows; more generally now our judges have different and competing laws to choose from this clearly empowers them. that might not matter if their appointment was under effective political control as it is in the US rather than a distant and secret process kept far from voters.

Paul Newman,

Robin is that the European Charter of Human Rights ?

I believe Robin is referring to the European Convention on Human Rights.

@ 26:

““But the spirit in which it is being used and interpreted is alien to the British legal tradition and hence it has to go.” (SMFS #15 above)

Funnily enough, they’re still saying it. So is it really true that no-one is calling for us to withdraw from the ECHR?”

The ECHR =/= the HRA. It’s possible to support repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with something more suitable for a common-law country, whilst still wanting this new Bill of Rights (or whatever you choose to call it) to reflect the principles laid down in the ECHR.

XXX,

The ECHR =/= the HRA. It’s possible to support repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with something more suitable for a common-law country, whilst still wanting this new Bill of Rights (or whatever you choose to call it) to reflect the principles laid down in the ECHR.

IIUC, the two biggest problems the ‘right wing’ and Labour people have are that (1) we can’t legally deport people to countries where they will face a ‘real risk’ of torture and (2) where there is a supposedly disproportionate interference with the right to a family life.

IIUC, we would face the same legal difficulties absent the Human Rights Act 1998, whatever a British Bill of Human Rights said, because we remain signatory to the Convention and there is no indication that the Court’s opinions on the above problems will change.

That is what people seem to be failing to address – the Bill of British Rights just seems like noise.

Sorry – not noise, but procrastination.

hey spacey mate, have you heard of Daily Mash, its pretty good mate you should have a look. Seriously you would like it, hold up, I will get a link.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

There you go. Its like your stuff, really it is, have a read. Tell me what you think.

OK, extremely annoyed with Theresa May and the cat story. Well done Kenneth Clarke for the gentle correction (and a latter a few months ago reminding her of the independence of the Supreme Court).

And some of you want to get rid of Clarke? Brilliant…