« Where it all started to go wrong | Main | Life, but not as we know it. »

"an exorbitant assertion of government power"

The Law Lords ruling is being seen as a matter about Hunting, it wasn't, it was about the constituional checks and balances that we live under. The anti-hunters are pleased with the ruling and are claiming the confirmation that the House of Lords has no real power is a triumph for Democracy. So full steam ahead for whatever the House of Commons decides on any day with no gentle restraining hand. Not good.

BBC NEWS | UK | Law Lords stand by ban on hunting

Countryside campaigners have lost their latest bid to overturn the ban on hunting with dogs, after nine Law Lords unanimously ruled it would remain.
The Countryside Alliance had argued the legislation used to force the ban through in England and Wales - the 1949 Parliament Act - was illegal.
...anti-hunt campaigners called it a "triumph for democracy".
Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said the Lords' ruling had come as "no surprise" but the fight would go on.
"The Law Lords, for technical reasons, found themselves unable to agree with our case - but the Attorney General takes a bit of a kicking in the judgement as well."
However, he added: "This judgement effectively gives the House of Commons the freedom - with no checks and balances - to do what it wants, to whom it wants, when it wants."
‘The Council of Hunting Associations is extremely disappointed by the final outcome of the Parliament Act Challenge. The result strikes a sombre note for the future of British democracy. As one of the Law Lords stated in his judgment: “I am deeply troubled about assenting to the validity of such an exorbitant assertion of government power”.


Not good indeed.

It was interesting to read (in the law report itself) in The Times that

"The Attorney-Genreral submitted that the 1911 Act and now the 1949 Act, could in principle be used to amend or delete the reference to the maximum duration of Parliament in section 2(1) of the Act and that a further measure could then be introduced to extend the maximum."

What a strange point, now why on earth would anyone want to do that?

Its revolution ti-i-ime!!
String the bast-ards u-u-up!!

... seriously, the Americans are quite right that the only way you get good government is when the bastards fear for their lives if they piss people off. Once apon a time, England was considered ungovernable. From that period arose, perhaps, the best government possible. Draw your own conclusions.

And the "Law Lords" are not political. Someone was supposed to protect the populace from an overbearing executive, I seem to recall. If it isn't them who will protect us. We are too close to a totalitarian state now for my liking.

This is why the Commons has to be accounatable to hereditary Lords with no exceptions. The old Lords weren't political, the new Lords are appointed by the government and now form a specially engineered Labour majority. How do you get into the House of Lords nowadays? Simple, pledge your undying and unerring loyalty to the government.

NuLabour changed the rules for the House of Lords so that they could ride rough-shod over the British people. The sad thing is that the British people allowed that to happen. There are none so blind as lemmings following a power-hungry leader.

Post a comment