Hoon to Law Lords: Shove Off, Grandpa

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Oct 9, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mr. Hoon has proposed measures to assure a higher level of parliamentary support for police state legislation.

    The next few parliamentary weeks with be dominated by Charles Clarke’s new anti-terrorism Bill.

    A combative Mr Hoon declared yesterday that the Government would not “roll over” in the face of objections from retired law lords and must provide the police and the security forces with the powers they wanted. He hoped that ways would be found of keeping the main parties on board. “But I do worry sometimes that out there my constituents, and the constituents of every other MP, want the police to have the powers they need to deal with the terrorist threat.

    “We are looking for agreement. That will help the parliamentary process. But we have to have effective powers that allow the police to take the necessary action. That means we cannot always accept everything retired law lords may demand.”


    [Mr. Hoon] said that the remaining 92 hereditary peers in the Lords would soon go, hinting at legislation in the next session of Parliament. “It is important that we get on with that. It is important that we do not leave this as unfinished business,” he said.

    Hoon to push for compulsory voting
    by Philip Webster 8 October 2005
  2. I'm all for a second house , but not like the one we currently have.

    I'm all for a police state as well.
  3. The man is a deceitful dissembling incompetent blithering arrsehole. The Lords will stop any draconian legislation curbing free speech or locking people up for 90 days. If the Parliament Act was used to force such a bill through, the public uproar and constitutional damage would be immense.
  4. Oh, and there's not enough parliamentary time to reform the Lords! :twisted:
  5. He is, on the face of things, deceitful. He knows full well that the Lords do not have a power of veto over legislation. If important legislation needs to be pushed through quickly, and provided that he has the full support of the commons and the public, he can always resort to the parliament act. Yet, he appears to be saying that the lords, in particular the retired law lords (of which there are only about 12 if i remember correctly) are the main obstacles to the draconian legislation!
  6. TCH is proving as much of a cnut as Leader of the House as he was as SofS for Defence.
  7. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    But it's easy to see why he's so popular... :D
  8. Well you very nearly have your wish given the way the police are misusing the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism act. By the time the Glorious Leader has finished bringing in his ideas on police powers we will be more akin to the old USSR than a working democracy.
  9. If any legislation at all is so important that it should bypass the debate that proper passage through Parliament exposes it to, there's what's known as (I think) the Salisbury Convention. According to this, the Lords won't return any legislation which was in a general election manifesto to the Commons, on the grounds that it has been voted for explicitly by the British people.

    If Hoon wants this new legislation on the books that badly, and thinks it's that important, and believes that it's supported by the public - call a snap election and make it your number one manifesto promise. Those 92 hereditary peers won't touch it - if you win. And of course, can't speak for all those brand shiny new peers-for-life created by TCB, many of whom won't have a scooby about Salisbury.

  10. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    We are indeed getting perilously close to the Nacht und Nebel legislation of an earlier Socailist regime, I think.

    Hoon knows very well what he is doing - he is a Barrister, isn't he? I must say that, yet again, it is only th eherieditary Lords - who have nothing to prove, and no seats to defend - who appear to be between us and the development of a police state.
  11. Way to go!
  12. There are also 60million UK citizens, and if even 10% of those decided to say "no" then there is not much that HMG could do.
  13. Hear, hear!

    We must retain an upper house with the power of veto, and who have no vested interests in the outcome of elections. This is the only way to ensure that the lower house are unable to push through draconian or ill-considered legislation.

    Furthermore, it is extremely useful to have an upper house so full of very experienced and highly successful professionals and academics. Their knowledge and experience (I would even go so far as to say wisdom in the old village elder sense) is invaluable to our legislative process, and to remove them would be disaster.

    That said, I do see a distinction between life peers who have been promoted to the Lords as a result of their highly successful careers, and hereditary peers, who really haven't done anything to earn their place.
  14. One of the few nice things about the hereditaries though, is that they really are beholden to nobody - when your great-great grandpappy got himself and his heirs in for whacking some stroppy pineapple-wielding natives by the dozen, the political parties of the day don't even have the leverage of "well, we put you in there, kindly see things our way, old boy".
  15. True, although there is no democratic defence in that. At least with the life peers, they are experts proposed and appointed by the democratically elected.

    And I thought it was 'sharpened guava fruit'?