Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

After looking at the excellent new website Liberty Central, I come across this post originally made on a blog called two4tea. The post suggests New Labour's greatest legacy may be a written British constitution:

Quote: The UK has had a long history of muddling through in constitutional matters.

The primary reason that we have existed so long with an unwritten constitution is that there has been broad consensus on what limits the unwritten words place on the executive, parliament and the Judiciary. This is no longer the case.

[...]

When the inevitable abuses from the currant populist attacks on civil liberties become apparent, then there will be a backlash and a search for ways of protecting the people of the UK from a repeat of such stupidity.

One of the primary advantages of a written constitution has over an unwritten one is that it takes a large consensus to get a change. One person can not decide the “rules have changed” and suspend jettison constitutional safeguards that have existed for hundreds of years. But if there is a broad consensus that there is a need for change then the changes can be enacted.

There is something I just can't put my finger on, some abstract feeling which makes me think there is something "unBritish" about a US style written constitution. But then, what this government is doing, pissing all over our hard fought liberties, makes me think it would be by far the lesser of two evils. (Although having said that - will it not be the same people drafting and writing the constitution that are disrespecting what we currently have?)

Looking at the current state of our civil liberties, all I could do to end on is say this:

If you're not OUTRAGED, you're not PAYING ATTENTION!!!

[Sparse1]

I as we already have the European Convention on Human Rights - which I would suggest is far more liberal than anything Britain would come up with domestically - a written constitution would just be a pointless waste of time and money. The problem in Britain is not so much any lack of Civil Liberties, which are fairly rigidly enshrined by our EU membership, as it is a complete lack of political accountability due to our undemocratic electoral system and our archaic parliamentary system.

It would not suprise me if Blair came up with a 'British Constitution' as his final legacy because it would be a gloriously showy white elephant, something New Labour seems to increasingly specialise in. A far more useful 'legacy' for Blair to give the British people would be an electoral system founded upon a system of proportional representation and a heavily reformed (possibly Presidential) governmental system.......it won't happen though, the political elite like their power too much.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: I as we already have the European Convention on Human Rights - which I would suggest is far more liberal than anything Britain would come up with domestically - a written constitution would just be a pointless waste of time and money. The problem in Britain is not so much any lack of Civil Liberties, which are fairly rigidly enshrined by our EU membership, as it is a complete lack of political accountability due to our undemocratic electoral system and our archaic parliamentary system.

Well I oppose the European Convention on Human Rights, since "European rights" do not exist, and also the nature of the document uses liberty in a 'positive' sense rather than the 'negative' sense traditional here, which I think sets a dangerous precedent. Politicans do not establish documents telling us what our rights are. We establish governments and tell politicans what their powers are. Its a subtle, but crucial, and inherently English, distinction.

Also I do not agree civil liberties are less important than reforming our electoral system. I don't particulary see whats wrong with a parliamentary system anyway....?

Sparse1 wrote: It would not suprise me if Blair came up with a 'British Constitution' as his final legacy because it would be a gloriously showy white elephant, something New Labour seems to increasingly specialise in. A far more useful 'legacy' for Blair to give the British people would be an electoral system founded upon a system of proportional representation and a heavily reformed (possibly Presidential) governmental system.......it won't happen though, the political elite like their power too much.

Wouldn't a proportional representation system be slightly contradictory in spirit with a presidential govt system? PR will force consensual politics, whereas the presidential system puts a single man in charge of the whole government, elected on his own agenda, and be inherently unconsensual.

Perhaps you could clarify your vision for reforming the electoral system and govt?

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well I oppose the European Convention on Human Rights, since "European rights" do not exist

It doesn't offer 'European Rights', it offers some frankly bizarre Human Rights that appear to have been drawn up at a middle class dinner party. It's merely 'European' because that's the political area that it's slightly dubious mandate covers.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
also the nature of the document uses liberty in a 'positive' sense rather than the 'negative' sense traditional here, which I think sets a dangerous precedent.

I absolutely agree with that, however positive liberty is really the aim of a constitution.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Politicians do not establish documents telling us what our rights are. We establish governments and tell politicians what their powers are. Its a subtle, but crucial, and inherently English, distinction.

That has never been the case in Britain, once elected a government has very few checks on it's power, particularly from the electorate, 'We' do not tell politicians what their powers are, they decide it for themselves in our name. You are right that it is an inherently English feature made possible by the fact that we have such a heavily disenfranchised population.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Also I do not agree civil liberties are less important than reforming our electoral system.

Civil liberties are determined by the ongoing power struggle between the government and the people, in it's most basic form more popular control means more Civil Liberties, and more governmental control results in less.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I don't particulary see whats wrong with a parliamentary system anyway....?

The party in power controls the House of Commons, and given that the second Chamber cannot veto legislation it means that in Britain the Legislative and Executive branches of government are not separated and one usually controls the other; the phrase 'Elected Dictatorship' was coined specifically to describe the British Government because there is so little accountability for those with power. Our Parliamentary system offers zero accountability between elections and a very poor system of quality control on legislation.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Wouldn't a proportional representation system be slightly contradictory in spirit with a presidential govt system?

Yes, however it's adaptation for a Presidential system where everybody's vote actually goes toward electing the leader would be a vast improvement on what we currently have - I've never been given a ballot paper with Tony Blair's name on it, or indeed had it matter if I voted or not.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
PR will force consensual politics, whereas the presidential system puts a single man in charge of the whole government, elected on his own agenda, and be inherently unconsensual.

A Presidential System puts one man in charge of the Executive branch of government, which is what effectively happens in the UK anyway, it also serves to distance the Legislative branch of government from the Executive, adding at least some accountability within the system and stopping the current system of political backscratching that determines most things. You can also have elections to the Legislature at mid-term for the President so also adding in some accountability to the electorate for the government as a whole. The Prime Minister is already in control of the whole government, this is just dragging back some of this control into the hands of parliament and the people - a move to a Presidential system is just accepting what already happens and enshrining it.

As for being consensual I believe that we need vibrant debate, we need controversy and we need bold policy making, however we also need those doing it to be accountable to the people to a far greater degree than they currently are.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well I oppose the European Convention on Human Rights, since "European rights" do not exist

It doesn't offer 'European Rights', it offers some frankly bizarre Human Rights that appear to have been drawn up at a middle class dinner party. It's merely 'European' because that's the political area that it's slightly dubious mandate covers.

What I mean is these "rights" apply to all "Europeans". Europe is a geographical continent, not a political entity which can give out rights to its "citizens". My opposition to the Convention in this sense is just me being consistent with my desire to leave the EU.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
also the nature of the document uses liberty in a 'positive' sense rather than the 'negative' sense traditional here, which I think sets a dangerous precedent.

I absolutely agree with that, however positive liberty is really the aim of a constitution.

Not necessarily so. Yes, the aim of a written constitution would be 'positive' in the sense that thats why its being proposed, to protect rights, but it needn't be written in that way.

My idea of what the constitution would try to achieve is to clearly set out the powers of parliament, govt/cabinet, PM, and judicary, and also probably entrench devolution to Wales/Scotland/NI/England..? etc. Then reassert basic legal principles: haebus corpus, trial by jury, the state must not "deny or delay justice" a la Magna Carta. Then the constitution should repeat freedoms we already have, and restrict govt in those areas, e.g. "Parliament shall make no law regarding religion, speech etc"

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Politicians do not establish documents telling us what our rights are. We establish governments and tell politicians what their powers are. Its a subtle, but crucial, and inherently English, distinction.

That has never been the case in Britain, once elected a government has very few checks on it's power, particularly from the electorate, 'We' do not tell politicians what their powers are, they decide it for themselves in our name. You are right that it is an inherently English feature made possible by the fact that we have such a heavily disenfranchised population.

I talk in principle only, of course the reality is in a representative democracy that the people don't in effect have all that much of a say in politics. However a written constitution could provide solid circumstances for and ingrain the use of referendums, propositions, New England style town meetings in the UK to return power to the people.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Also I do not agree civil liberties are less important than reforming our electoral system.

Civil liberties are determined by the ongoing power struggle between the government and the people, in it's most basic form more popular control means more Civil Liberties, and more governmental control results in less.

Yes, but on issues such as ID Cards, detention without trial, legislative and regulatory reform act, etc etc, the problem is not how politicans were elected but what their ideas and plans are. There needs to be certain limits which democratic majorities cannot step past.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I don't particulary see whats wrong with a parliamentary system anyway....?

The party in power controls the House of Commons, and given that the second Chamber cannot veto legislation it means that in Britain the Legislative and Executive branches of government are not separated and one usually controls the other; the phrase 'Elected Dictatorship' was coined specifically to describe the British Government because there is so little accountability for those with power. Our Parliamentary system offers zero accountability between elections and a very poor system of quality control on legislation.

We seem to have coped over hundreds of years with it, and I don't see why such drastic change is needed. The fact that the Executive is drawn from the Legislature does violate the idea of separation of powers but also establishes the supremacy of parliament, in that no one can join the govt without going through the same processes as any other elected member.

On the "other place", there is a good reason why it can't veto legislation, and that is because it is not elected. It is not at all viable to increase the powers of the Lords, even at times like these where a bunch of elitist upper-class toffs are fighting the good fight on New Labour's illiberal policies. An elected upper chamber is an option, but that may result in a huge loss of the independence of mind and voting that peers now enjoy.

On the lack of accountability between elections, and lack of quality control on legislation - I can't see this as anything more than what is typical for represenative democracy in any form. It doesn't appear to be specific to a parliamentary system at all

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Wouldn't a proportional representation system be slightly contradictory in spirit with a presidential govt system?

Yes, however it's adaptation for a Presidential system where everybody's vote actually goes toward electing the leader would be a vast improvement on what we currently have - I've never been given a ballot paper with Tony Blair's name on it, or indeed had it matter if I voted or not.

I think a return to our tradition of cabinet government, perhaps enforced with a written constitution in some way, is all thats needed here.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
PR will force consensual politics, whereas the presidential system puts a single man in charge of the whole government, elected on his own agenda, and be inherently unconsensual.

A Presidential System puts one man in charge of the Executive branch of government, which is what effectively happens in the UK anyway, it also serves to distance the Legislative branch of government from the Executive, adding at least some accountability within the system and stopping the current system of political backscratching that determines most things. You can also have elections to the Legislature at mid-term for the President so also adding in some accountability to the electorate for the government as a whole. The Prime Minister is already in control of the whole government, this is just dragging back some of this control into the hands of parliament and the people - a move to a Presidential system is just accepting what already happens and enshrining it.

These are interesting points, though I feel i've said my bit on your suggestions earlier in the post. I would just say though that while a "presidential" executive is what we indeed seem to have developed, I can't say thats a good thing, so why enshrine it?

Sparse1 wrote:
As for being consensual I believe that we need vibrant debate, we need controversy and we need bold policy making, however we also need those doing it to be accountable to the people to a far greater degree than they currently are.

But then how to you address, then, a president elected with a huge majority campaigning on one issue (say tax cuts) having to face a PR elected legislature with a huge variety of parties with hugely different agendas? How does then president's agenda get implemented?

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: What I mean is these "rights" apply to all "Europeans". Europe is a geographical continent, not a political entity which can give out rights to its "citizens".

The European Union is a political entity that can give out rights to it's citizens (the EU is remember little more than a tool of it's member governments). The Metternich stuff is horribly out of date.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
My opposition to the Convention in this sense is just me being consistent with my desire to leave the EU.

It would probably be more sensible to judge each issue on it's own individual merits.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Then reassert basic legal principles: haebus corpus, trial by jury, the state must not "deny or delay justice" a la Magna Carta. Then the constitution should repeat freedoms we already have, and restrict govt in those areas, e.g. "Parliament shall make no law regarding religion, speech etc"

They're very subjective points, trial by jury is being consistently proven fundamentally flawed, habeas corpus is a meaningless procedural term that is dependent utterly upon the law and 'justice' is also dependent fundamentally upon interpretation. If you are going to write up a totally subjective document that can mean absolutely anything then you may as well not bother. What you seem to be saying is that you want a Bill of Rights to govern the law.

Also Britain traditionally has a state religion, so traditionally Parliament does have the right to pass laws on religion.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: and also probably entrench devolution to Wales/Scotland/NI/England..? etc.

Why?? A Constitution surely only need ensure that the people of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have the same legal rights.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
However a written constitution could provide solid circumstances for and ingrain the use of referendums, propositions, New England style town meetings in the UK to return power to the people.

Referendums (referenda??) are nothing more than a tool to manipulate the population, let's face it none of us have the expertise or the time to gain that expertise in order to judge many political issues - the EU is a prime example, the things that matter are the complex legal, structural, economic and strategic issues that few actually understand, there is no chance of people being able to make an informed decision (as there wasn't on the initial referendum to join the common market) - people just end up having to trust what they read in their newspapers or see on the TV. The people of a country should not have any direct say on anything, you will just then be letting the media run the country, they should instead have ways of regularly passing judgment upon the performance of elected representatives.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Yes, but on issues such as ID Cards, detention without trial, legislative and regulatory reform act, etc etc, the problem is not how politic ans were elected but what their ideas and plans are. There needs to be certain limits which democratic majorities cannot step past.

But that prohibits the government from taking pragmatic action to deal with crises as they arise. Democratic rights are useless unless they can be protected.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
We seem to have coped over hundreds of years with it, and I don't see why such drastic change is needed.

Coped in spite of it not because of it though.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
The fact that the Executive is drawn from the Legislature does violate the idea of separation of powers but also establishes the supremacy of parliament, in that no one can join the govt without going through the same processes as any other elected member.

The supremacy of parliament only occurs if there is a narrow government majority otherwise the executive holds total sway over things (as Blair's first two term's showed).

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
On the "other place", there is a good reason why it can't veto legislation, and that is because it is not elected.

Which is not viable in a democratic state, you either get rid of them or elect them all and give them real power.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is not at all viable to increase the powers of the Lords, even at times like these where a bunch of elitist upper-class toffs are fighting the good fight on New Labour's illiberal policies. An elected upper chamber is an option, but that may result in a huge loss of the independence of mind and voting that peers now enjoy.

Any 'illiberal' policies are defeated on test in the 'rather more liberal than Britain has ever been and ever will be' European Court.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
On the lack of accountability between elections, and lack of quality control on legislation - I can't see this as anything more than what is typical for represenative democracy in any form. It doesn't appear to be specific to a parliamentary system at all

In the Parliamentary system the Executive and the Legislature are elected at the same time, this means that the population has no means of passing judgment on the government for as long as 5 years.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
But then how to you address, then, a president elected with a huge majority campaigning on one issue (say tax cuts) having to face a PR elected legislature with a huge variety of parties with hugely different agendas? How does then president's agenda get implemented?

It's unlikely that a President would be elected on one issue, however one solution would be that you had Presidential elections every 4 years and legislative elections every two, thus for the first tow years of the term the President can reasonably fulfill his mandate but then if he screws up he has to change tack after the next legislative elections and compromise.

[antonio62]

We have a written constitution its called Magna Carta.

[Lord Hargreaves]

antonio62 wrote: We have a written constitution its called Magna Carta.

The magna carta only covers a very brief selection of our liberties, and is not 'entrenched', so no it isn't a written constitution.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: What I mean is these "rights" apply to all "Europeans". Europe is a geographical continent, not a political entity which can give out rights to its "citizens".

The European Union is a political entity that can give out rights to it's citizens (the EU is remember little more than a tool of it's member governments). The Metternich stuff is horribly out of date.

You may view it as "out of date", but thats what I believe. The EU is illegitimate.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
My opposition to the Convention in this sense is just me being consistent with my desire to leave the EU.

It would probably be more sensible to judge each issue on it's own individual merits.

wha? I just meant i oppose the convention by the same reasons i oppose the EU, thats all.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Then reassert basic legal principles: haebus corpus, trial by jury, the state must not "deny or delay justice" a la Magna Carta. Then the constitution should repeat freedoms we already have, and restrict govt in those areas, e.g. "Parliament shall make no law regarding religion, speech etc"

They're very subjective points, trial by jury is being consistently proven fundamentally flawed,

eh? By who, you?

Sparse1 wrote: habeas corpus is a meaningless procedural term that is dependent utterly upon the law


Wow. Use a dictionary if you're unclear on what it means.

Sparse1 wrote: and 'justice' is also dependent fundamentally upon interpretation.

Well justice in this sense is when someone either recieves the appropriate for the crime they have been found guilty of, or are set free if found not guilty.

Sparse1 wrote: If you are going to write up a totally subjective document that can mean absolutely anything then you may as well not bother. What you seem to be saying is that you want a Bill of Rights to govern the law.

I do want a 'Bill of Rights' sure, other than that not entirely sure what you are saying, sorry.

Sparse1 wrote:

Also Britain traditionally has a state religion, so traditionally Parliament does have the right to pass laws on religion.

Yes, and traditionally we burnt witches too. Legislating on religion is no longer acceptable in the UK.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: and also probably entrench devolution to Wales/Scotland/NI/England..? etc.

Why?? A Constitution surely only need ensure that the people of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have the same legal rights.

Name a constitution that only does that. In preventing devolved power from being returned to Westminister, you are protecting democracy in that sense.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
However a written constitution could provide solid circumstances for and ingrain the use of referendums, propositions, New England style town meetings in the UK to return power to the people.

Referendums (referenda??) are nothing more than a tool to manipulate the population, let's face it none of us have the expertise or the time to gain that expertise in order to judge many political issues - the EU is a prime example, the things that matter are the complex legal, structural, economic and strategic issues that few actually understand, there is no chance of people being able to make an informed decision (as there wasn't on the initial referendum to join the common market) - people just end up having to trust what they read in their newspapers or see on the TV. The people of a country should not have any direct say on anything, you will just then be letting the media run the country, they should instead have ways of regularly passing judgment upon the performance of elected representatives.

You have no right to say people are not "qualified" to make decisions for themselves. And the EU is no "prime example", since it was created by lawyers for lawyers, its very naive to think anyone in Brussels cares about the people.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Yes, but on issues such as ID Cards, detention without trial, legislative and regulatory reform act, etc etc, the problem is not how politic ans were elected but what their ideas and plans are. There needs to be certain limits which democratic majorities cannot step past.

But that prohibits the government from taking pragmatic action to deal with crises as they arise. Democratic rights are useless unless they can be protected.

Well thats kinda, er, the point. Don't we want to prohibt what is viewed as "pragmatic" action in the eyes of authoritarians?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
We seem to have coped over hundreds of years with it, and I don't see why such drastic change is needed.

Coped in spite of it not because of it though.

Lol, maybe

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
The fact that the Executive is drawn from the Legislature does violate the idea of separation of powers but also establishes the supremacy of parliament, in that no one can join the govt without going through the same processes as any other elected member.

The supremacy of parliament only occurs if there is a narrow government majority otherwise the executive holds total sway over things (as Blair's first two term's showed).

In practice, yes. In constitutional theory, this is not true.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
On the "other place", there is a good reason why it can't veto legislation, and that is because it is not elected.

Which is not viable in a democratic state, you either get rid of them or elect them all and give them real power.

Perhaps a debate for another time?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is not at all viable to increase the powers of the Lords, even at times like these where a bunch of elitist upper-class toffs are fighting the good fight on New Labour's illiberal policies. An elected upper chamber is an option, but that may result in a huge loss of the independence of mind and voting that peers now enjoy.

Any 'illiberal' policies are defeated on test in the 'rather more liberal than Britain has ever been and ever will be' European Court.

Thats BS, since most Europeans have less civil liberties than we do. The French have had ID Cards since Napoleon, for example.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
On the lack of accountability between elections, and lack of quality control on legislation - I can't see this as anything more than what is typical for represenative democracy in any form. It doesn't appear to be specific to a parliamentary system at all

In the Parliamentary system the Executive and the Legislature are elected at the same time, this means that the population has no means of passing judgment on the government for as long as 5 years.

This is usually done at local/devolved body/european level.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
But then how to you address, then, a president elected with a huge majority campaigning on one issue (say tax cuts) having to face a PR elected legislature with a huge variety of parties with hugely different agendas? How does then president's agenda get implemented?

It's unlikely that a President would be elected on one issue, however one solution would be that you had Presidential elections every 4 years and legislative elections every two, thus for the first tow years of the term the President can reasonably fulfill his mandate but then if he screws up he has to change tack after the next legislative elections and compromise.

Nah, I still don't like this idea. Seems like such an incredible waste of time.

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You may view it as "out of date", but thats what I believe. The EU is illegitimate.

It is as legitimate as any other International Treaty a government signs or adheres to.

Sparse1 wrote:
wha? I just meant i oppose the convention by the same reasons i oppose the EU, thats all.

It's a different issue, if the European Convention on Human Rights has a positive effect on your life (I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then how does objecting to the EU make that bad. Is this purely a theoretical rights point??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
eh? By who, you?

You are quite aware of the criticism levelled at juries in technical cases - particularly financial ones where the jury was accused of being unable to understand the complex issues, their willingness to rely on the testimony of expert witness even when it is flawed and their over-reliance on forensic evidence - all of these issues have been fairly high profile over the last 12 months.

I personally believe that trial by jury should carry with it a number of options and that one of the options should be that your trial is genuinely carried out by your peers - if you are a white middle class professional woman then your jury should be made up of white middle class professional women, if you so choose. If you are accused of a financial crime then you should be entitled to demand a jury of financial expertise to ensure that they understand it. Though that is again another issue entirely.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Wow. Use a dictionary if you're unclear on what it means.

Habeus Corpus in the UK is a writ that may be issued determining the legality of someone's detention, as such it is a procedural element dependent wholly upon the wording of the law - what is unclear about that???

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well justice in this sense is when someone either recieves the appropriate for the crime they have been found guilty of, or are set free if found not guilty.

Exactly, what is appropriate?? If you are set free then do you get compensated for any time that your liberty of you?? and so on. There will be widespread disagreement on what that means and although a vague constitution may be most workable in the long-term it will have little effect.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I do want a 'Bill of Rights' sure, other than that not entirely sure what you are saying, sorry.

I'm saying that the 'Constitutional Rights' you seem to be dealing with are subjective and transient issues that will be wholly unworkable - some are incredibly easy to subvert, others are too restricting. It is all based upon your own ideology rather than any assessment of what would be viable in the long term for the country.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Yes, and traditionally we burnt witches too.

We still burn witches in our own way.....just on the pages of a newspaper rather than a bonfire.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Legislating on religion is no longer acceptable in the UK

To you maybe, however I doubt that you would ever carry a majority on that.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Name a constitution that only does that. In preventing devolved power from being returned to Westminister, you are protecting democracy in that sense.

No you aren't, whether your interests are represented in Westminster or a local assembly then it still keeps your democratic rights intact. You have representatives (supposedly) looking after your interests.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You have no right to say people are not "qualified" to make decisions for themselves.

As you have based much of your argument of the right to free speech then I have every right to do that. I do not believe that the British education system adequately ensures that the British people are in the position to judge their government (possibly intentionally) or to make crucial decisions from a position of understanding. Politics, Economics, Government, International relations, Philosophy, Strategic Studies - When do people ever have the opportunity to study these??? It'd be a disaster for important decisions to be made based upon what the Daily Mail says, or what the Guardian says, I don't want people's opinions of the French, or their opinions of non-whites to start directly influencing policy ahead of the technical issues. There is no possible merit in creating a tabloid political system.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
And the EU is no "prime example", since it was created by lawyers for lawyers, its very naive to think anyone in Brussels cares about the people.

That's irrelevant, your personal opinion of the people involved is utterly unimportant. Your analysis of the economic, political and strategic factors involved in Britain's membership of the EU are what matters (though that is also a different point). That's rather the point I am making on referendums.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well thats kinda, er, the point. Don't we want to prohibt what is viewed as "pragmatic" action in the eyes of authoritarians?

Then you have a very short document limiting extreme abuses and leaving the state enough room for movement to ensure national security and national survival. Theoretical opinions on 'rights' are all very well over the dinner table but can't get too much in the way of the real world. I suppose the Constitution could be completely redrafted evry ten years so that it could then better reflect the situation that the country is dealing with.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
In practice, yes. In constitutional theory, this is not true.

Indeed. However the practical application of the theory is it's test.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Thats BS, since most Europeans have less civil liberties than we do. The French have had ID Cards since Napoleon, for example.

I fail completely to see why ID Cards are a breach of Civil Liberties, perhaps if they make you pay for them then I can see why they would be. The criticism usually levelled at an oppressive government is that they take your identity away not guarantee it.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
This is usually done at local/devolved body/european level.

And those levels can act as checks and balances on the government??

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You may view it as "out of date", but thats what I believe. The EU is illegitimate.

It is as legitimate as any other International Treaty a government signs or adheres to.

I view 'legitimacy' as meaning more than whether its adoption was legal.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
wha? I just meant i oppose the convention by the same reasons i oppose the EU, thats all.

It's a different issue, if the European Convention on Human Rights has a positive effect on your life (I'm not saying that it necessarily does) then how does objecting to the EU make that bad. Is this purely a theoretical rights point??

Sure it is. I couldn't support something just because it benefitted be individually on some random issue.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
eh? By who, you?

You are quite aware of the criticism levelled at juries in technical cases - particularly financial ones where the jury was accused of being unable to understand the complex issues, their willingness to rely on the testimony of expert witness even when it is flawed and their over-reliance on forensic evidence - all of these issues have been fairly high profile over the last 12 months.

I personally believe that trial by jury should carry with it a number of options and that one of the options should be that your trial is genuinely carried out by your peers - if you are a white middle class professional woman then your jury should be made up of white middle class professional women, if you so choose. If you are accused of a financial crime then you should be entitled to demand a jury of financial expertise to ensure that they understand it. Though that is again another issue entirely.

Some interesting points that might work, though it may undermine the idea that "society" is judging you, and not just your own social group.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Wow. Use a dictionary if you're unclear on what it means.

Habeus Corpus in the UK is a writ that may be issued determining the legality of someone's detention, as such it is a procedural element dependent wholly upon the wording of the law - what is unclear about that???

Ok sure, its not a concrete term and varies on different issues, but its quite clear what it means, thats my point. It surely wouldn't be difficult for a constitution to adapt to these differences to reflect an objective measure.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well justice in this sense is when someone either recieves the appropriate for the crime they have been found guilty of, or are set free if found not guilty.

Exactly, what is appropriate?? If you are set free then do you get compensated for any time that your liberty of you?? and so on. There will be widespread disagreement on what that means and although a vague constitution may be most workable in the long-term it will have little effect.

You don't understand. The length of sentence is irrelevant, only that once guilty a person should serve the sentence he was given. If someone is innocent, they should be set free. If guilty, they should recieve punishment. If not charged, they should be charged, or set free.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I do want a 'Bill of Rights' sure, other than that not entirely sure what you are saying, sorry.

I'm saying that the 'Constitutional Rights' you seem to be dealing with are subjective and transient issues that will be wholly unworkable - some are incredibly easy to subvert, others are too restricting. It is all based upon your own ideology rather than any assessment of what would be viable in the long term for the country.

I don't agree. These are clear issues. What is subjective about the things I suggest? Freedom of speech is only "subjective" if you regard the view of authoritarians who don't agree with it when what is being said goes against them as being equal to mine.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Yes, and traditionally we burnt witches too.

We still burn witches in our own way.....just on the pages of a newspaper rather than a bonfire.

:lol:

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Legislating on religion is no longer acceptable in the UK

To you maybe, however I doubt that you would ever carry a majority on that.

Well what exceptions do you propose?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Name a constitution that only does that. In preventing devolved power from being returned to Westminister, you are protecting democracy in that sense.

No you aren't, whether your interests are represented in Westminster or a local assembly then it still keeps your democratic rights intact. You have representatives (supposedly) looking after your interests.

Ok but would you not agree democratic representation is more efficient and better at local level? So make sure that is ingrained, for democracy.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You have no right to say people are not "qualified" to make decisions for themselves.

As you have based much of your argument of the right to free speech then I have every right to do that. I do not believe that the British education system adequately ensures that the British people are in the position to judge their government (possibly intentionally) or to make crucial decisions from a position of understanding. Politics, Economics, Government, International relations, Philosophy, Strategic Studies - When do people ever have the opportunity to study these??? It'd be a disaster for important decisions to be made based upon what the Daily Mail says, or what the Guardian says, I don't want people's opinions of the French, or their opinions of non-whites to start directly influencing policy ahead of the technical issues. There is no possible merit in creating a tabloid political system.

I see where you're coming from, of course. Most people are ignorant, or else how do you explain a third term Labour government? Still, I think they are ignorant, and I can't stop people do things which i think are stupid if they do not. Thus if the democratic majority want to institute stupid policies that will damage the nation (within the limitations of individual rights) thats their decision, and I wholeheartedly support that.

Sparse1 wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well thats kinda, er, the point. Don't we want to prohibt what is viewed as "pragmatic" action in the eyes of authoritarians?

Then you have a very short document limiting extreme abuses and leaving the state enough room for movement to ensure national security and national survival. Theoretical opinions on 'rights' are all very well over the dinner table but can't get too much in the way of the real world. I suppose the Constitution could be completely redrafted evry ten years so that it could then better reflect the situation that the country is dealing with.

There would be opportunities for amendments, yes. But "adapting to the modern world" is exactly what i'm trying to stop, because its nothing more than a ploy of authoritarians to increase their power. Strangely, adapting to the current situation a country is in never seems to decentralise the state :think:

Sparse1 wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Thats BS, since most Europeans have less civil liberties than we do. The French have had ID Cards since Napoleon, for example.

I fail completely to see why ID Cards are a breach of Civil Liberties, perhaps if they make you pay for them then I can see why they would be. The criticism usually levelled at an oppressive government is that they take your identity away not guarantee it.

You are paying for it anyway, where does the government's money come from, they grow it on trees now? It is not for the state to "guarantee" my identity, its not for the state to know a damn thing about me unless I make contact with the state - by entering the nation, by violating its laws, by requesting benefits, etc. If the creation of the largest database in the western world on every citizen doesn't bother you, then I simply can't empathise with your point of view. It seems so ridiculously authoriatian. ID Cards utterly destroys the notion of negative liberty by treating us all as potential terrorists/illegal immigrants/criminals. I am who I am, and I am free, because i exist - that is not due to the benevolence of the state

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
This is usually done at local/devolved body/european level.

And those levels can act as checks and balances on the government??

No, but they reflect public disaffection.

[Sparse1]

Sorry Lord Hargreaves, I composed a reply and mustn't have posted it. I will post one this evening.

Many apologies, I didn't mean to be rude.

[bob.appleyard]

Sparse1 wrote: I as we already have the European Convention on Human Rights - which I would suggest is far more liberal than anything Britain would come up with domestically - a written constitution would just be a pointless waste of time and money. The problem in Britain is not so much any lack of Civil Liberties, which are fairly rigidly enshrined by our EU membership, as it is a complete lack of political accountability due to our undemocratic electoral system and our archaic parliamentary system.

It would not suprise me if Blair came up with a 'British Constitution' as his final legacy because it would be a gloriously showy white elephant, something New Labour seems to increasingly specialise in. A far more useful 'legacy' for Blair to give the British people would be an electoral system founded upon a system of proportional representation and a heavily reformed (possibly Presidential) governmental system.......it won't happen though, the political elite like their power too much.

It's a nice idea. Probably wouldn't alter the behaviour of the gov't, mind. I have a lingering attachment to the shambles that is the current system. If you left it up to New Labour it'll just be another sodding Millenium Dome, which is, in my opinion, the thing which has symbolised them most. Utter waste of time.

[bob.appleyard]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: We have a written constitution its called Magna Carta.

The magna carta only covers a very brief selection of our liberties, and is not 'entrenched', so no it isn't a written constitution.

Considering most of it is setting limits on what the crown can charge if you get married or acquire some serfs (and so on), I wouldn't want to use that document in isolation...

[bob.appleyard]

The common stereotypes were that the Tories are all slimy and corrupt, while Labour are terribly authoritarian. New Labour get the double whammy! Like they don't deserve it...

[Sparse1]

bob.appleyard wrote:
If you left it up to New Labour it'll just be another sodding Millenium Dome, which is,

On a totally tangental note; I went to the Millenium Dome (when it was open obviously) and thought it was great - never really understood why the media spent the entire time it was open saying that it was crap.

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I view 'legitimacy' as meaning more than whether its adoption was legal.

If it genuinely wasn't then it would have been challenged, you could argue that it's unconstitutional I suppose but I doubt that would be upheld.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Sure it is. I couldn't support something just because it benefitted be individually on some random issue.

Dogmatism.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Some interesting points that might work, though it may undermine the idea that "society" is judging you, and not just your own social group.

This is another point entirely I know, but in the modern world do we live in society or in our own social groups??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If not charged, they should be charged, or set free.

Many democratic states have used internment at one time or another - national survival always comes before freedoms in practice.

Sparse1 wrote:
I don't agree. These are clear issues. What is subjective about the things I suggest? Freedom of speech is only "subjective" if you regard the view of authoritarians who don't agree with it when what is being said goes against them as being equal to mine.

So I can hold rallies to bully, advocate violence, be racist, be homophobic etc and claim it is free speech?? It is free speech I know, however many would disagree.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well what exceptions do you propose?

Personally I'd want to keep check on doctrine, however that is not practical in the real world so religions should just be treated the same as any other political group (which is what they increasingly are) - a right to 'freedom of religion' or any such thing is unneccessary.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Ok but would you not agree democratic representation is more efficient and better at local level?

In theory a decentralised organisation is more efficient however I do not see evidence that local government is more efficient than central government - indeed I would say that local government is even less accountable than central government.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I see where you're coming from, of course. Most people are ignorant, or else how do you explain a third term Labour government? Still, I think they are ignorant, and I can't stop people do things which i think are stupid if they do not. Thus if the democratic majority want to institute stupid policies that will damage the nation (within the limitations of individual rights) thats their decision, and I wholeheartedly support that.

That's how many dictatorships work - keep the people poorly educated then manipulate what you want them to think so that you can 'legitimately' act in their best interests. It's isn't democratic if people don't understand what they are voting on - it's just reinforcing the position of a ruling-elite.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
There would be opportunities for amendments, yes. But "adapting to the modern world" is exactly what i'm trying to stop, because its nothing more than a ploy of authoritarians to increase their power.

Surely common sense dictates that two different situations will require two different solutions??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Strangely, adapting to the current situation a country is in never seems to decentralise the state :think:

One of the big rules of government is 'decentralise anything that is centralised, and centralise anything that is decentralised', this therefore gives 'change' and change passes for progress. It runs in cycles and is why politicians seem to achieve so little, at such high cost.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You are paying for it anyway, where does the government's money come from, they grow it on trees now?

They'd be spending it on something else anyway - governments aren't in the habit of hitting the end of a year with a surplus and then giving it back to the people.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is not for the state to "guarantee" my identity,

Well noone else is going to.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
its not for the state to know a damn thing about me unless I make contact with the state - by entering the nation, by violating its laws, by requesting benefits, etc.

Driving on the roads, paying tax, watching TV etc. You make contact with the state all of the time.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If the creation of the largest database in the western world on every citizen doesn't bother you, then I simply can't empathise with your point of view.

The government already know masses of information about us (think what the Inland Revenue and the DVLA know about us alone) and I'd much rather it was in one place so we at least have some chance of holding the government accountable for it's use, than across several inefficient government departments.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
ID Cards utterly destroys the notion of negative liberty by treating us all as potential terrorists/illegal immigrants/criminals.

Why is it treating us all like criminals??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I am who I am, and I am free, because i exist - that is not due to the benevolence of the state

Lovely theory, however your 'rights' are meaningless unless guaranteed by the state.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
No, but they reflect public disaffection.

But can they do anything about it??

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote:
If you left it up to New Labour it'll just be another sodding Millenium Dome, which is,

On a totally tangental note; I went to the Millenium Dome (when it was open obviously) and thought it was great - never really understood why the media spent the entire time it was open saying that it was crap.

I also went and thought it was ok, certainly not as bad as people were saying it was. Yet, for what it was, and what it was trying to be, it was an utter failure and a complete waste of money. Why anyone thinks its the business of the state to build things like that is beyond my capabilities of comprehension.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I view 'legitimacy' as meaning more than whether its adoption was legal.

If it genuinely wasn't then it would have been challenged, you could argue that it's unconstitutional I suppose but I doubt that would be upheld.

It is being challenged - by me, by eurosceptic parties and other assorted patriots

Sparse1 wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Sure it is. I couldn't support something just because it benefitted be individually on some random issue.

Dogmatism.

So even if you looked on something objectively and deemed it wrong, immoral, and illegitimate - it must be right, moral and legitimate if it benefits your own selfish interests? What on earth is this thinking? Do you not believe in principle?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Some interesting points that might work, though it may undermine the idea that "society" is judging you, and not just your own social group.

This is another point entirely I know, but in the modern world do we live in society or in our own social groups??

social groups sure, largely as a result of the destruction of communities by the welfare state.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If not charged, they should be charged, or set free.

Many democratic states have used internment at one time or another - national survival always comes before freedoms in practice.

In times of war, it may be acceptable to hold different standards indeed. But this has to be more than taking it on trust from the PM.

Sparse1 wrote: Sparse1 wrote:
I don't agree. These are clear issues. What is subjective about the things I suggest? Freedom of speech is only "subjective" if you regard the view of authoritarians who don't agree with it when what is being said goes against them as being equal to mine.

So I can hold rallies to bully, advocate violence, be racist, be homophobic etc and claim it is free speech?? It is free speech I know, however many would disagree.

Free speech means you are free to speak your mind. Thats not the issue. The issue is that peoples confidence in free speech filters out at the waters edge, largely because they are insecure in their own opinions.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Well what exceptions do you propose?

Personally I'd want to keep check on doctrine, however that is not practical in the real world so religions should just be treated the same as any other political group (which is what they increasingly are) - a right to 'freedom of religion' or any such thing is unneccessary.

We already have laws which prevent say human sacrifice which have nothing to do with religion. In this sense, I can't see a reason why a law concerning religion would be needed. They may be an exception, but i can't see it at the moment.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Ok but would you not agree democratic representation is more efficient and better at local level?

In theory a decentralised organisation is more efficient however I do not see evidence that local government is more efficient than central government - indeed I would say that local government is even less accountable than central government.

Local govt may be seen to be less efficient because its powers are more limited, but the approximitey to the people would surely make it better at recognising and addressing their needs (I know, at least in theory)

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I see where you're coming from, of course. Most people are ignorant, or else how do you explain a third term Labour government? Still, I think they are ignorant, and I can't stop people do things which i think are stupid if they do not. Thus if the democratic majority want to institute stupid policies that will damage the nation (within the limitations of individual rights) thats their decision, and I wholeheartedly support that.

That's how many dictatorships work - keep the people poorly educated then manipulate what you want them to think so that you can 'legitimately' act in their best interests. It's isn't democratic if people don't understand what they are voting on - it's just reinforcing the position of a ruling-elite.

This is a bizarre argument, since I said nothing about education. I'd love compulsory education before 16 on our historical documents of liberty so the people would be more aware than they are now when a government tries to piss on their rights. With this, the people would be much likely to make the "right" decisions.

Also, that is why I believe a written constitution that entrenched civil liberties against democratic majorities may be necessary, just in case the peopel are "stupid" and vote for "stupid" things.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
There would be opportunities for amendments, yes. But "adapting to the modern world" is exactly what i'm trying to stop, because its nothing more than a ploy of authoritarians to increase their power.

Surely common sense dictates that two different situations will require two different solutions??

Following that line of thinking, does this mean there is nothing existing now you would not compromise if "the situation required it"?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Strangely, adapting to the current situation a country is in never seems to decentralise the state :think:

One of the big rules of government is 'decentralise anything that is centralised, and centralise anything that is decentralised', this therefore gives 'change' and change passes for progress. It runs in cycles and is why politicians seem to achieve so little, at such high cost.

I can't see much thats been decentralised, unless it was a play to Welsh and Scottish nationalists to keep on voting Labour.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You are paying for it anyway, where does the government's money come from, they grow it on trees now?

They'd be spending it on something else anyway - governments aren't in the habit of hitting the end of a year with a surplus and then giving it back to the people.

Thats a terrible way to think. They aren't in the habit, but they should be. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you have to buy it - that logic doesn't work privately, so why does it hold any water at state level?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is not for the state to "guarantee" my identity,

Well noone else is going to.

Why does it need to be "guaranteed"? Your identity is yours and not the state's.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
its not for the state to know a damn thing about me unless I make contact with the state - by entering the nation, by violating its laws, by requesting benefits, etc.

Driving on the roads, paying tax, watching TV etc. You make contact with the state all of the time.

When driving on roads, you make no individual contact.
When paying tax, you are correct. But our current state of paying tax also goes against my theory. Apart from "name" and "total income" I don't see why the state need know any more about you. Thats why i'm disgusted with many indirect taxes, and support a flat income tax.
On the TV license, that is illegitimate. You should not need government "permission" to watch moving colour images.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If the creation of the largest database in the western world on every citizen doesn't bother you, then I simply can't empathise with your point of view.

The government already know masses of information about us (think what the Inland Revenue and the DVLA know about us alone) and I'd much rather it was in one place so we at least have some chance of holding the government accountable for it's use, than across several inefficient government departments.

Combining information would make it more efficient for the state. You are not the state, and may indeed suffer from this increased efficiency. The separation of info helps prevent abuse, and I don't see why a govt department need know more about you than is absolutely necessary to do its own individual scheduled task.

Also, is it not kind of strange reasoning to present our current doubtful state of civil liberties to argue for futher infringement?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
ID Cards utterly destroys the notion of negative liberty by treating us all as potential terrorists/illegal immigrants/criminals.

Why is it treating us all like criminals??

Not criminals, potential criminals. You either are a criminal, in which the state can infringe your liberty by locking you up, imposing fines, keep your DNA/fingerprints - or you are not a crimnal, in which the state has no right to these things. ID Cards and the database state creates a middle ground between these two which is frankly worrying.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I am who I am, and I am free, because i exist - that is not due to the benevolence of the state

Lovely theory, however your 'rights' are meaningless unless guaranteed by the state.

What rights do we talk of here? My rights include freedom from physical harm, free to speak my mind and believe what i want, freedom to earn money. Are these the "rights" ID cards will protect? Or were you thinking of the right to increasingly scrounge benefits off the state, because ID Cards will surely do that.

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is being challenged - by me

Somewhere meaningful??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
by eurosceptic parties

Eurosceptic parties are not challenging anything because they come across as pompous and childish, all they need to is publish the figures of how Britain will be Economically better off outside of the EU and they have won the debate.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
other assorted patriots

Nationalists. Patriotism is the most misused political term in the dictionary - it is by definition difficult to be hold genuine Patriotism towards an entire country.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
So even if you looked on something objectively and deemed it wrong, immoral, and illegitimate - it must be right, moral and legitimate if it benefits your own selfish interests?

If it benefits your interests then it also benefits the interests of others, if it benefits others then what right do you have to try and take that benefit away from them on a point of highly subjective ideological principle??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
What on earth is this thinking?

Something other than theory.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Do you not believe in principle?

No, I believe in reality.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
social groups sure, largely as a result of the destruction of communities by the welfare state.

The welfare state has destroyed communities?? That's an interesting debate - perhaps you could outline that in another post if you have the time??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
In times of war, it may be acceptable to hold different standards indeed. But this has to be more than taking it on trust from the PM.

So who do you trust?? Parliament?? The House of Lords?? A Judge??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
We already have laws which prevent say human sacrifice which have nothing to do with religion. In this sense, I can't see a reason why a law concerning religion would be needed. They may be an exception, but i can't see it at the moment.

So why do we need a point in a Constitution for Religion then??


Lord Hargreaves wrote:
This is a bizarre argument, since I said nothing about education.

I was talking about education and you replied to that point, I took it that we were in the same conversation.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I'd love compulsory education before 16 on our historical documents of liberty so the people would be more aware than they are now when a government tries to piss on their rights. With this, the people would be much likely to make the "right" decisions.

That's indoctrination though. People need education on government, politics, rights and law in general - they will then be in the position to do as you say and also to judge whether the British tradition is appropriate.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Also, that is why I believe a written constitution that entrenched civil liberties against democratic majorities may be necessary, just in case the peopel are "stupid" and vote for "stupid" things.

But we'd all have a differing idea of what 'stupid' actually is, so it would end up with a really vague point about 'not damaging the country' or something.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Following that line of thinking, does this mean there is nothing existing now you would not compromise if "the situation required it"?

Possibly not. It's hard to say in purely hypothetical terms.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Thats a terrible way to think. They aren't in the habit, but they should be.

They should be doing lots of things in my opinion but they aren;t going to be.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you have to buy it - that logic doesn't work privately, so why does it hold any water at state level?

It works privately in the case of a monopoly, and the state is a monopoly.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Why does it need to be "guaranteed"? Your identity is yours and not the state's.

Why do any rights need to be guaranteed?? Because if they can't be enforced then they are meaningless.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Combining information would make it more efficient for the state. You are not the state.

We are the state, without us there would be no state.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
The separation of info helps prevent abuse, and I don't see why a govt department need know more about you than is absolutely necessary to do its own individual scheduled task.

Well, that's a fundamental difference of opinion on our parts - I would rather have it all under one roof so that we can keep track of what's being done with it.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Not criminals, potential criminals. You either are a criminal, in which the state can infringe your liberty by locking you up, imposing fines, keep your DNA/fingerprints - or you are not a criminal, in which the state has no right to these things.

Why has the state no right to do these things??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
ID Cards and the database state creates a middle ground between these two which is frankly worrying.

Of all of the limitations on Civil Liberties in the UK I see ID Cards as one of the least significant - I can see far more occasions when an ID Card would be a benefit than when it would be oppressive. Back to my original point, it is far less significant than the simple fact that our electoral system disenfranchaises huge sections of the population and results in election results being decided by the votes of less than 5% of the population.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
What rights do we talk of here? My rights include freedom from physical harm, free to speak my mind and believe what i want, freedom to earn money. Are these the "rights" ID cards will protect?

Your point was that you do not have rights through the benevolence of the state.

ID Cards would protect all of those things that you suggest if they were very difficult and expensive to forge - the fact that they won't be will torpedo the whole scheme.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Or were you thinking of the right to increasingly scrounge benefits off the state, because ID Cards will surely do that.

The ID Cards being suggested should limit 'scrounging', one of the key causes of benefit fraud and the like is the lack of communication between government departments and the ease of lying to them. If you just mean that everybody who collects benefits is a scrounger then that is a different point entirely.