Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • British bill of rights?

    by Sunny
    25th October, 2007 at 9:00 am    

    Gordon Brown will try today to restore his reputation as a prime minister driven by principle by setting out his plans to reform the constitution with a new British bill of rights and duties that builds on the existing Human Rights Act.

    In a speech today to the human rights organisation Liberty, Mr Brown is expected to renew his commitment to constitutional reform and firmly reject Conservative demands to repeal the Human Rights Act.

    He is expected to argue that abolishing the act would prevent British citizens from asking British courts to protect their fundamental rights, forcing lengthy delays as they appeal instead to Strasbourg judges who are less likely to appreciate the British context of their case.

    The three consultation papers are expected to include options for constitutional change over the power to make war and sign treaties, giving MPs the final decision over committing troops; over the appointment of senior judges to the courts; and the right to demonstrate in the vicinity of parliament.

    From the Guardian today. I don’t know why he’s flaffing about; should just introduce a codified constitution instead of all this assortment of documents and bills.

                  Post to

    Filed in: British Identity,Civil liberties

    5 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. sonia — on 25th October, 2007 at 10:47 am  

      you tell ‘em sunny.

    2. Gavin Whenman — on 25th October, 2007 at 1:08 pm  

      “Introduce a codified constitution instead of all this assortment of documents and bills.”

      Yes, but then our great British constitution would lose its vital flexibility, which has seen us through 1000 glorious years of parliamentary democracy … blah, blah… won’t give up powers to Brussels … taking away our Sundays… what happened to the good old days?

    3. ChrisC — on 25th October, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

      Sorry to be boring, but the introduction of a constitution is not now (perhaps it might have been 50 years ago) a simple matter.

      Constituional expert Prof Vernon Bogdanor explains why here (worth reading and very well written):

    4. Gavin Whenman — on 25th October, 2007 at 2:54 pm  

      He’s also a conservative (although he has written some good stuff on the royal prerogative).

    5. ChrisC — on 25th October, 2007 at 4:20 pm  

      “He’s also a conservative…”

      Do try to play the ball…

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.