Not new, exactly, but worrying - [url]The Conservatives are re-writing the constitution[/url]
Disgraceful, underhanded tactics but not exactly surprising. Cameron must be running scared to have to resort to this, e.g. introducing gagging laws to prevent a fair political debate. Not a sign of strength but revealing signs of fear that he might stand to be toppled. Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head! 
Disgraceful, underhanded tactics but not exactly surprising. Cameron must be running scared to have to resort to this, e.g. introducing gagging laws to prevent a fair political debate. Not a sign of strength but revealing signs of fear that he might stand to be toppled. Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head!
That story was so obviously not true.....I am sure he ignored it as well he should. A written constitution per se is not a bad idea......but I will wait to see what is in it before I condemn it.
That story was so obviously not true.....I am sure he ignored it as well he should. A written constitution per se is not a bad idea......but I will wait to see what is in it before I condemn it.
Are you so sure that the story is not true? Admittedly it sounds far fetched but the context is that it was part of a sordid initiation ceremony after joining Oxford University dining society as a student. Surely if it was false then
Cameron would be gleefully baying for blood and suing the author by now? No such action has yet been taken though....
Not new, exactly, but worrying - [url]The Conservatives are re-writing the constitution[/url]
In the UK we are not citizens and we do not have an enforceable constitution. We are subjects of her majesty.
I personally would welcome a written legally binding constitution to cover basic human rights.
As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.
The last thing we need is politically elected second chamber. This would defeat the purpose of the chamber. Some may have been called "old duffers" but they for the most part were unbiased, which is more than you can say of some of the present representatives.
I showed the link (in the OP) to someone and he says that the New Statesman is an anti Tory magazine (he is not a Tory). He adds that the link is a hypothesis and not a provable strategy...My thoughts are well maybe not everything mentioned in it is a hypothesis, e.g. the gagging law because the Labour party have said they will repeal it!
He misunderstands the word 'hypothesis'.
Are you so sure that the story is not true? Admittedly it sounds far fetched but the context is that it was part of a sordid initiation ceremony after joining Oxford University dining society as a student. Surely if it was false then
Cameron would be gleefully baying for blood and suing the author by now? No such action has yet been taken though....
Yes I am sure. And to sue would have the idea credence it didn't deserve. I am aware of the context and also aware other other members of the so called society have rubbished the idea. I don't believe half the stuff I read on headlines and on the internet.
Yes I am sure. And to sue would have the idea credence it didn't deserve. I am aware of the context and also aware other other members of the so called society have rubbished the idea. I don't believe half the stuff I read on headlines and on the internet.
Those who rubbished the idea are Conservative party sources. However, I do see that Cameron is disputing it and looking into it, i.e. concerning photographic evidence!
In the UK we are not citizens and we do not have an enforceable constitution. We are subjects of her majesty.
We have an 'unwritten constitution' - the laws and principles of the body politic of the U K and N I. Everything is written, but not in one place.The monarch is a constitutional monarch. She is subject to the constitution, not the other way around.
As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.
The last thing we need is politically elected second chamber. This would defeat the purpose of the chamber. Some may have been called "old duffers" but they for the most part were unbiased, which is more than you can say of some of the present representatives.
That's not the Lord's job. It might work like that, sometimes, but nowhere is it written that it should be so. I don't understand your last statement. Who were 'old duffers' and when? In what way is this changed? 'Unbiased', how?
Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head!
Whether this is true or not (and students - particularly ones so rich they don't have to worry about getting a job afterwards - do stupid things) it's a distraction from all the other things he has done that have far more effect on the people of the UK.
I showed the link (in the OP) to someone and he says that the New Statesman is an anti Tory magazine (he is not a Tory). He adds that the link is a hypothesis and not a provable strategy...My thoughts are well maybe not everything mentioned in it is a hypothesis, e.g. the gagging law because the Labour party have said they will repeal it!
It isn't so much anti-tory as pro left-wing. We all have biases and there are few enough magazines and papers that are left-wing.
'hypothesis and not a provable strategy' (a contradiction in terms) - well, there's certainly moves to cut funds to opposition parties via short money (Briefing Paper 01663, 2nd December 2015). And the so-called 'gagging laws' came into force in September. Constituency boundary changes are on the books and the rules for registering to vote have changed.
Whether this is true or not (and students - particularly ones so rich they don't have to worry about getting a job afterwards - do stupid things) it's a distraction from all the other things he has done that have far more effect on the people of the UK.
Of course. The context of my mentioning this was in my first post # 2. I apologise for going off topic subsequently in addressing this matter.
We have an 'unwritten constitution' - the laws and principles of the body politic of the U K and N I. Everything is written, but not in one place.The monarch is a constitutional monarch. She is subject to the constitution, not the other way around.
That's not the Lord's job. It might work like that, sometimes, but nowhere is it written that it should be so. I don't understand your last statement. Who were 'old duffers' and when? In what way is this changed? 'Unbiased', how?
You state that we have an unwritten constitution an then state that everything is written down but not in one place. We do not have a legal written constitution. We have laws that we are subject to. The closest we have to a constitution is the Human Rights act, which at present is enforceable through the UK law courts.
The term "old duffer" has been sometimes used to describe a hereditary peer, one who is getting on in years and who sometimes gives the impression that he out of touch with modern life.
The second chamber does exist to provide checks and balances for government actions. It acts as a safety net and as such should be politically unbiased in its duties. Political parties have expanded through their own ranks the number of peers. There is no way that I can see this as anything but a political attempt to influence the role of the second chamber.
Of course. The context of my mentioning this was in my first post # 2. I apologise for going off topic subsequently in addressing this matter.
I wasn't meaning you were distracting, rather that the media were since it's a racier story than austerity, fracking and all the other serious stuff.