The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[silkyman]

No i'm glad i saw your post it means i can start planning my fight with the bastards at The DWP, i NEVER give in!

Fight the good fight mate!!

 

[Red]

I don't think they'll cut PIP, DLA or ESA, but what they will do is freeze it and change the eligiblity criteria.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

https://twitter.com/50ShadesOfTory

 

[silkyman]

https://twitter.com/50ShadesOfTory

Brilliant

 

[silkyman]

'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'

So.... You're NOT going to leave us alone if we obey the law, David?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

More assaults on freedom of expression then.

 

[Techno Natch]

Quite a large anti Austerity demo in Bristol today.

 

[smat]

Can someone (let's face it, probably Captain Scumbag) explain why replacing the Human Rights Act might actually be sensible and not as terrifying as it sounds? I've just got an email from 38 Degrees asking me to sign a petition about it and I don't know if I want to make such a big commitment without hearing both sides of this.

 

[Alty]

Can someone (let's face it, probably Captain Scumbag) explain why replacing the Human Rights Act might actually be sensible and not as terrifying as it sounds? I've just got an email from 38 Degrees asking me to sign a petition about it and I don't know if I want to make such a big commitment without hearing both sides of this.

They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights which would still protect fundamental human rights. The way some people carry on you'd think the Tories are determined to ban free assembly and that unlimited internment is on the way.

Essentially (and I'm not a legal eagle - Scummers will probably explain it better) I think the Government want more leeway to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights through a British legal lens rather than following it to the letter as they currently have to do as a result of the Human Rights Act.

All stems from some genuinely absurd judgements in relation to foreign criminals.

 

[Cardsfan]

Yeah, the idea is that by scrapping it and replacing it with a British version, they can deport criminals to countries where torture is often used; they are currently binded by the Human Rights Act which legally prevents them from doing so.

 

[Techno Natch]

That is unlikely to be the only change but that's the one they use as the main example as it feeds into peoples fear.

I don't think it's bad to review it but I don't trust them with it and especially not Gove but we shall see.

 

[Veggie Legs]

They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights which would still protect fundamental human rights. The way some people carry on you'd think the Tories are determined to ban free assembly and that unlimited internment is on the way.

Essentially (and I'm not a legal eagle - Scummers will probably explain it better) I think the Government want more leeway to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights through a British legal lens rather than following it to the letter as they currently have to do as a result of the Human Rights Act.

All stems from some genuinely absurd judgements in relation to foreign criminals.

Isn't what we have at the moment a piece of British legislation? And if we replace it with something different, won't it still to have to meet the same criteria with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights?

 

[Matt_]

Theresa May on the Today programme this morning.

“There are people out there, sadly, who are seeking to divide us,”

Yes, they're called the fooking Tory party!

 

[Alty]

Isn't what we have at the moment a piece of British legislation? And if we replace it with something different, won't it still to have to meet the same criteria with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights?

It is a piece of domestic legislation, yeah. You'll have to ask someone cleverer than me about the nuances, but what the Government is trying to avoid is situations like the one a couple of years back when Jordan wanted to extradite someone, we had sought assurance from the Jordanians there would be no torture of the suspect, they agreed, we stated we were satisfied...and then we were still unable to extradite him.

I don't possess the legal knowledge to know exactly how the British Bill of Rights would stop that happening in future. But apparently it would.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights which would still protect fundamental human rights. The way some people carry on you'd think the Tories are determined to ban free assembly and that unlimited internment is on the way.

Essentially (and I'm not a legal eagle - Scummers will probably explain it better) I think the Government want more leeway to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights through a British legal lens rather than following it to the letter as they currently have to do as a result of the Human Rights Act.

All stems from some genuinely absurd judgements in relation to foreign criminals.

I'm certain they are for some people.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights which would still protect fundamental human rights. The way some people carry on you'd think the Tories are determined to ban free assembly and that unlimited internment is on the way.

Essentially (and I'm not a legal eagle - Scummers will probably explain it better) I think the Government want more leeway to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights through a British legal lens rather than following it to the letter as they currently have to do as a result of the Human Rights Act.

All stems from some genuinely absurd judgements in relation to foreign criminals.

Won't it have implications for the Good Friday agreement?

 

[Alty]

Won't it have implications for the Good Friday agreement?

Nothing that can't be overcome if there's the political will. No doubt SF will try to spin it as a British Government attempt to thwart Republican ambitions or some other complete bollocks though.

 

[Techno Natch]

Pictures from the well attended and peaceful demo in Bristol today:

http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/pictures...ctures/pictures-26497716-detail/pictures.html

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It's basically a load of shit. The rights contained in the ECHR are simple and basic and what any right-thinking person would subscribe to and any British bill would pretty much have to mirror that. The HRA makes a remedy for breach of Convention rights available in UK courts, so if you want to take up a case against a public authority which violates your human rights, you can do so in the UK rather than having to go to Strasbourg. The government seem to think that the UK courts are unduly constrained by the HRA but this seems like nonsense to me, because judgments of the European court aren't actually binding on our courts; the HRA merely obliges our courts to "take into account" their judgments. Neither does the HRA oblige the UK to respond to judgments of the European court - that's an Article contained within the Convention. The UK would therefore have to pull out of the ECHR and the Council of Europe if the Tories want to achieve their desired goal. After the assault on legal aid and attack on judicial review I wouldn't trust this lot as far as I can throw them so far as legal affairs go, especially with the party having sidelined the likes of Clarke and Grieve, members who, y'know, actually knew the first thing about this kinda stuff. Naturally, those calling for its repeal aren't among the most vulnerable in society, who have the most to lose from such a move.

 

[Red]

I saw Theresa May (GILF), on the news this morning talkiing about getting tougher on extremism and to her credit she also mentioned neo-Nazis as well as extremist Muslims.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I wonder if they'll organize book burnings too.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

@ Smat
I'm probably not the best person to bat for Team Evil on this occasion, as I'm pretty ambivalent. I might write some waffle later, but for now all I have are the following points.

– The Convention is of British design and sensible enough. Most of the problems are caused by odd interpretations of the Convention rather by than the Convention itself.

– The main offender with regard to odd interpretations is the Strasbourg court, which has a very strong tendency towards mission creep and expansionism. I understand Gove's frustration with that.

– That said, part of the problem (as I think Pineapple alluded to) is the tendency of our domestic courts to also indulge in mission creep and/or slavishly follow the Strasbourg line, even though there is nothing in the HRA that obliges them to. Successive governments have been pretty supine, too.

– I think reform is needed, but there is no easy solution to any of the above. It might be sensible to amend the existing legislation (repeal certain parts, add others, lay down clearer guidelines for the domestic courts, etc.) rather than just do away with it completely.

Don't think that actually answered your question...

 

[The Southbank]

My own personal view is country will collapse in 4 years. Public services are close to collapse but it now neds to take bigger cuts than last 5 years, going out of Europe will end up a massive disaster and these welfare cuts will end up horrific, there is a reason they keep quiet.

This reads incredibly over-dramatic for my liking. Public services were given far too much leeway under the Labour administration, which is why action has to be taken to deal with the consequences. Whatever your political leaning, anyone with half a brain could see that Labour's economic proposals - had they got into power - were detached from reality.

My prediction for what's it's worth:

• EU referendum votes in favour of staying in the EU, and thankfully so.
• Cameron does not grant Scotland another referendum, but devolves further powers away.
• A serious, cross-party debate on the NHS. We are heading towards a crisis point with this fantastic institution, but the answer simply isn't - as many people say - to just throw more money at it. We need greater efficiency to save it and this may, whether you like it or not, have to involve private investment.

 

[Aber gas]

This reads incredibly over-dramatic for my liking. Public services were given far too much leeway under the Labour administration, which is why action has to be taken to deal with the consequences. Whatever your political leaning, anyone with half a brain could see that Labour's economic proposals - had they got into power - were detached from reality.

My prediction for what's it's worth:

• EU referendum votes in favour of staying in the EU, and thankfully so.
• Cameron does not grant Scotland another referendum, but devolves further powers away.
• A serious, cross-party debate on the NHS. We are heading towards a crisis point with this fantastic institution, but the answer simply isn't - as many people say - to just throw more money at it. We need greater efficiency to save it and this may, whether you like it or not, have to involve private investment.

The nhs is as you say a magnificent institution but also a major employer in Britain, it's also by nature a massive money pit . Private sector values and rules don't work when it comes to the nhs . For all my 35 years , governments have tried and failed to make the nhs more efficient. It's time to leave it alone and accept it for what it is , an expensive necessity.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

 

[mnb089mnb]

This reads incredibly over-dramatic for my liking. Public services were given far too much leeway under the Labour administration

Didn't the Tories promise to match their spending plans?

 

[The Southbank]

The nhs is as you say a magnificent institution but also a major employer in Britain, it's also by nature a massive money pit . Private sector values and rules don't work when it comes to the nhs . For all my 35 years , governments have tried and failed to make the nhs more efficient. It's time to leave it alone and accept it for what it is , an expensive necessity.

I'm not insinuating full privatization of the NHS, that would be careless and horrific, but certain sections of it could be open to some private investment. I believe that the invention of the NHS was our greatest achievement of the 20th century, bar defeating fascism of course, but we must understand that the NHS of 2015 is a completely different animal to that of 1950s. Free healthcare, in this current economic climate, is a privilege we might not be able to sustain into the future unless we really start to tackle the underlying problems evident in the health system.

 

[Red]

Didn't a recent survey disclose that most people would be happy to pay more tax to sustain the NHS rather than privatise any more of it?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I'm sure there must be ways to give the NHS opportunities to make some money without compromising what it exists for at it's core. What would stop the NHS from having a more capitalist wing that does boob jobs and liposuction for profits that it can then reinvest back into itself? The BBC is essentially socialized TV, but that doesn't mean it can't make a few quid too.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm not insinuating full privatization of the NHS, that would be careless and horrific, but certain sections of it could be open to some private investment. I believe that the invention of the NHS was our greatest achievement of the 20th century, bar defeating fascism of course, but we must understand that the NHS of 2015 is a completely different animal to that of 1950s. Free healthcare, in this current economic climate, is a privilege we might not be able to sustain into the future unless we really start to tackle the underlying problems evident in the health system.

Yes it's a different animal , a gargantuan, multi - layered, fragmented one . The nhs is a massive bureaucracy completely beyond the capabilities of the private sector . The idea of private companies being able to liaise and organise the myriad different trusts, sectors and care providers involved and still provide free healthcare whilst turning a profit is just not possible imo . The last significant attempt at introducing private finance into the nhs turned into an expensive fiasco ( pfi) sometimes , but not always the state is better at running things .