Comments on: Constitutional Reforms/Supreme Court

By: Laura

Laura — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:59 +0000

I am currently studying the effects of what A reformed constitution would do…and I have found myself agreeing with the Conservatives, if something works, why change it. The House of Lords and our two tier system of Parliament is what has determined and individualised Britain for many hundreds of years. The Law Lords do not work for the sake of making money and gaining status (since they already have this) they do it because they can and surely this makes their decisions impartial and after looking at many of their reports, I find them to be extremely clever people. Why should we change something that is so important to our history so that we become more in line with the USA and EU? I think messing with a system that has worked for so long is dangerous.

By: David Boothroyd

David Boothroyd — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:57:37 +0000

The law is too important to be left to the Law Lords.

By: PapaLazzzaru

PapaLazzzaru — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:13:44 +0000

But my point was precisely that; the fact that the proposals went against the grain for the Law Lords et al surely meant that it was doomed from the off. Now, if the house of Lords was properly reformed as we were led to believe was a priority with the Government, maybe this would not have happened…

By: David Boothroyd

David Boothroyd — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:56:46 +0000

It isn’t sudden. The announcement was in June last year. Perhaps the Government assumed that, after Lord Irvine had been roundly criticised as being overmighty, that his critics would welcome a move to make the Lord Chancellor less mighty and in general to decrease the power of the Executive and enhance that of the Judiciary. Sadly, vested interests among the Law Lords coupled with their conceit for their status and Conservative opportunism ruled the day. I would caution you against using the argument that the result of a vote in the Lords makes a reasonable point about the merits of a proposal. Fox-hunting anyone? Age of consent? etc.

By: PapaLazzzaru

PapaLazzzaru — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:04:49 +0000

True - but why the sudden urgency when there are other things which would benefit much more from the attention. Especially, as I pointed out initially because this was bound to be thrown out by the Lords anyway right from the start - how come that wasn’t anticipated, and if it was, why did they bother? Surely the fact that it was rejected by the Lords by a fair majority means it was badly thought out in the first place - not the idea but the detail?

By: David Boothroyd

David Boothroyd — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:56:13 +0000

It is surely a worthwhile task to separate Judicial appointments from the Executive, and to remove the senior Judiciary from Parliament. You could make the argument ‘it would take up too much time’ about almost anything.

By: PapaLazzzaru

PapaLazzzaru — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:49:07 +0000

It just amazes me that the government would waste so much time and energy on a matter like this when really it should have anticipated the Lords would reject it. Surely there is much else besides which would benefit from the same energy, and would have a much better chance of proceeding? So many things that I can’t think of a single one right now, but I’m sure other contributors can help me out…

By: Chris Lightfoot

Chris Lightfoot — Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:05:53 +0000

Well, the Lords now have "kicked the Bill into the long grass".