Electoral reform

[joinerjohn]

Well said Inky Pete.
In my humble opinion, the HRA is the most pernicious act ever introduced into the UK from Europe. It's the one law that has had the biggest, furthest reaching effects.
The only other act that has came close to the HRA is the Equality Act, with all that entails.

 

[RedHerring2]

Health bills, crime bills, educational reform, pensions, welfare and many, many others - even tax policy and budgetary decisions - are all affected directly by the Human Rights Act - which, as you rightly point out, is the UK statutory instrument enacting the European Convention (and it's associated Directives) on human rights. Any bill which does not bend its knee to the all powerful Human Rights Act faces the near certainty of being challenged in the European courts. that's the way it's always been. The HRA just saved people the cost and delay of using the ECof HR. Thus the EU gains the power to tell us what domestic laws we can and cannot have - all in the name of Human Rights, and without any of us ever getting a vote on it.

The HRA has also created a situation within our society where anyone who dislikes a decision made by a professional regarding themselves or the way they have been treated can claim that their human rights have been violated and take their case to Brussels. They always could They often find slightly shadowy backers with their own hidden agendas to fund the case for them (how else does a classroom assistant afford to take a case about whether or not she can do her job from inside a tent all the way to europe?) so one wonders quite what "special interests" those funding these cases truely have.

Even the threat of having to defend themselves against such an expensive legal process is usually enough to cause most public bodies to cave in an quietly give the complainant whatever they want. As a result, the "I want, I want!!" sections of society get to trample all over those of us who have a sense of fair play and accept that our lives cannot always be perfect.

The HRA actively attacks our society both from without and from within, so I believe my desciption of it as "destructive" is appropriate.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself in how it came into existence.

The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It also totally abolished the death penalty in UK law (although this was not required by the Convention in force for the UK at that time).

The Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Kingdom)i.e Acts of Parliament are more powerful than ECofHR. An individual can still take his case to the Strasbourg court as a last resort.

 

[RedHerring2]

The Human Rights Act has had far reaching consequences in the UK.
Example: An illegal immigrant drives a car without a licence, insurance etc. He runs over and kills a pedestrian. He gets 3 or 4 yrs in prison with the court ordering him to be deported once his prison term is spent.
Meanwhile, he gets one of these do gooder lawyers ( like Cherie Blair) to defend his right to remain in this country under the Human Rights Act. (bear in mind that he's here illegally) Simply because his wife and family are here (albeit illegally as well). A hypothetical example and one which does not stand up to scrutiny. If the perpetrator and his family are illegal they would all be deported, no argument.If not, then blame the government and the system not the HRA.
He wins the case. The government have to allow him to remain here. He claims every benefit he can, having paid nothing into the system.
Can this be right??
I certainly don't think so. I fully agree with you, in this example
The Human Rights Act is too far skewed in favour of those who actually break the Law of the land now and really needs re-evaluating at base level.
If someone breaks into your home and get's caught and arrested, they instantly have more rights than you the victim. All thrown at them by this pernicious act
As far as I can see, no other country in Europe implement the act the way that it has been implemented in the UK.

However, in a more probable case, given your presented scenario, the perpetrator argues that he was an illegal immigrant due to potential torture, assasination, etc in his native country.
Should he be deported because he's a political refugee?

From my own experience I have found immigrants, in general, to be more hard-working, more law-abiding, more honorable than the indigenous population.
The country is in a financial mess but I think it's unfair to blame the HRA or the illegal immigrants. Especially as no-one knows how many there are.

 

[Inky Pete]

Redherring, You've made half of my point for me, and left the other half completely unanswered.

By providing an easier route to "european" justice the HRA has encouraged the backers of various fringe groups to fund more and more attacks on our laws because they don't fit in with their predjudices. Under the older system an individual or organisation had to REALLY care about an issue or generate some SERIOUS public support in order to be practically able to take their case to Strasbourg.

And as for the other half of my point? I think it's well past time that we had a balancing Public Duty Act which defines what our society expects of its members. There's far, far too much talk about rights, and nowhere near enough about responsibilities.

 

[RedHerring2]

You've made half of my point for me, and left the other half completely unanswered.

Perhaps 'cos the thread started off about political reform.
But I think I made a point that covered both your arguments; that recourse to the ECof HR has always been there, well since the Second World War, at least. I think any discussion about finance and backing is off-topic surely. But I do think that 'class action' is a vey valid point. (a trial case that is representative of numerous cases.) and deserves some financial backing.

By providing an easier route to "european" justice the HRA has encouraged the backers of various fringe groups to fund more and more attacks on our laws because they don't fit in with their predjudices. Under the older system an individual or organisation had to REALLY care about an issue or generate some SERIOUS public support in order to be practically able to take their case to Strasbourg.

And as for the other half of my point? I think it's well past time that we had a balancing Public Duty Act which defines what our society expects of its members. There's far, far too much talk about rights, and nowhere near enough about responsibilities. Isn't this the role that the family, etc used to play as mentors, sociolisation, etc?

 

[Inky Pete]

There's far, far too much talk about rights, and nowhere near enough about responsibilities. Isn't this the role that the family, etc used to play as mentors, sociolisation, etc?

Not since Brussels made it illegal for parents, teachers or policemen to punish children. A consequence-free childhood and adolescence leads almost inevitably to an adulthood of selfishness and refusal to take responsibility.

 

[skitzee2k]

Just my two cents, I like the fact that I can vote for person, who is member of a party.

I believe that you have to have clear, consistent and intelligent rule. [color= darkblue] But if we start to develop an IT system, it would initially keep the representatives in touch with their electorate and a 'party' line may not be valid. [/color]

If the public decided everything, we would have a government of contradictions, because not everyone is bothered about everything.

There is a rule in service, that a happy customer will tell 3 people, but an UNhappy customer will tell ten... so even a service that has customers happy 3/4 still end up with a bad reputation.

This can be transfered to ideas and policies. Not sure it's a good analogy here

If a 'mob rule' happened where individual policies were voted on, we'd most likely end up in bizarre situations...like if a vote on capital punishment was brought up, i'm quite sure we'd get a yes...then if animal rights came up we'd get a yes...because the people that didn't care either way would abstain. So you're suggesting our representatives take unpopular choices about the issues that they decide are unpopular
It is very important that we are constant with how we treat issues and not flip flopping between policies.

I know for example how a lot of parties will vote on an issue even before they do it, because that is the party ideology. Remember we do not vote these people to help us rule, we vote them to rule on our behalf.
What about the voters who say; want a cap on immigration, a change in the poitical system and think that tax increase are the best way forward.?Who do they vote for every four years?

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

If you had a vote that asked, should more money be spent on public services, most people would vote yes, if you then asked if the government should reduce the national deficit, people would vote yes, if you then asked if we should put taxes up, people would vote no.

Whereas if you had a party that said, We will cut spending, cut the deficit and freeze tax....and another that says, we will freeze spending, cut the deficit and raise tax....you then pick your conpromise.

 

[skitzee2k]

There's far, far too much talk about rights, and nowhere near enough about responsibilities. Isn't this the role that the family, etc used to play as mentors, sociolisation, etc?

Not since Brussels made it illegal for parents, teachers or policemen to punish children. A consequence-free childhood and adolescence leads almost inevitably to an adulthood of selfishness and refusal to take responsibility.

I was punished whenever I did something naughty when growing up, not one of them involved assaulting me so could be allowed to day...and I have never been involved in crime or antisocial behaviour.

If people can't 'discipline' without physical violence, then they are a **** parent.

 

[joe-90]

I was punished whenever I did something naughty when growing up, not one of them involved assaulting me so could be allowed to day...and I have never been involved in crime or antisocial behaviour.

Did your parents send you to bed wearing boxing gloves?

 

[RedHerring2]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

Sorry InkyPete. I clicked on Ignore instead of thanks button. Not really, but did click on ignore instead of quote and can't get you back now

 

[skitzee2k]

I was punished whenever I did something naughty when growing up, not one of them involved assaulting me so could be allowed to day...and I have never been involved in crime or antisocial behaviour.

Did your parents send you to bed wearing boxing gloves?

speaking from experience joe?

 

[skitzee2k]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

Sorry InkyPete. I clicked on Ignore instead of thanks button. Not really, but did click on ignore instead of quote and can't get you back now

Red, if you believe that you can give tax cuts, increase spending and cut the deficit, that is your belief...which is why asking people like you to run a country will be an epic fail.

 

[RedHerring2]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

Red, if you believe that you can give tax cuts, increase spending and cut the deficit, that is your belief...which is why asking people like you to run a country will be an epic fail.

I think you're doing a Gordon Brown here. Misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're, no doubt, calling me a bigot now. I fundamentally disagree that I, or anyone else, have to always make a compromise along party lines. Full stop!
I think to suggest or create some policy that I have about how to run the country and then attempt an underhanded insult is preposterous.
Please note the bit that I fundamentally disagreed with.

 

[skitzee2k]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

Red, if you believe that you can give tax cuts, increase spending and cut the deficit, that is your belief...which is why asking people like you to run a country will be an epic fail.

I think you're doing a Gordon Brown here. Misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're, no doubt, calling me a bigot now. I fundamentally disagree that I, or anyone else, have to always make a compromise along party lines. Full stop!
I think to suggest or create some policy that I have about how to run the country and then attempt an underhanded insult is preposterous.
Please note the bit that I fundamentally disagreed with.

OK so if someone wants higher public spending but lower tax they DON'T have to compromise?? Is this what you are saying?

 

[RedHerring2]

This is my exact point, they have to compromise.

Fundamentally disagree.

OK so if someone wants higher public spending but lower tax they DON'T have to compromise?? Is this what you are saying?

The bit that I'm disagreeing with is: that a compromise along party lines must always be accepted.
I might support the ban on fox hunting, I might support Political system reform, I might support the cut in inheritance tax. It doesn't mean that I have to forsake two of them in favour of the one of them.
I want to vote on the issues not go aong the party lines. That's true political reform.
I may want to vote for lower taxes on fuel, alcohol, for instance, but for higher taxes on higher wage earners.
I may want to vote for political system reform.
I may want to vote to overhaul the tax credits system. I may suspect the cost of administering it is higher than the value of the awards it makes.
I may want to vote for some public spending cuts. etc, etc.
Perhaps none of the candidates matches my requirements. I may have to vote for a compromise but I will continue to argue for real political reform.