- FRONT PAGE
-
BLOGS
-
Chuka Umunna
:Ed's Google Speech and What It Means for Responsible Capitalism
-
Jack Butler
:Miliband Talks the Talk on Tax Avoidance - But Can Anyone Walk the Walk
-
Jemma Wayne
:Time to Stop Laughing at Farage's Bad Jokes
-
Duncan Weldon
:Chancellor Should Heed IMF Advice and Increase Infrastructure Spending Now
-
Alistair Darling
:Salmond's Default Position Bankrupts His Credibility
-
If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
Last night I ... tuned into the BBC's coverage of the House of Lords debate on the Justice and Security Bill via Democracy Live's excellent website. (Yeah, I know, online parliamentary debates are the new rock 'n' roll). Anyway, here's the short version of what happened: the government won, human rights lost.
The bill, under this light, can be seen as an effective and convenient way to get rid of claims which shines scrutiny over British intelligence agencies. This will no doubt be a win for the security establishment as it will become harder for accountability and transparency to be reached amongst claims against them
The Legal aid Bill gave the coalition government the most defeats of any bill in parliament for the last sixty years. In the end government only won by one vote in the house of Lords. A vote they would not have had if Lord Newton was still around to vote.
Last week, lawyers for the police were partly successful in pushing a case concerning what has been described as the "sexual and psychological abuse of campaigners for social justice ... by undercover police officers" into a secret tribunal, from which little if any evidence of just how this was allowed to happen will emerge.
Wednesday sees the formal dispatch from the House of Lords of what the wilder critics have named my "Secret Courts Bill". The Bill's passage has so far aroused great passion and debate - as any Bill which seeks to deliver the twin imperatives of justice and security must always do.
To appeal to a broader electorate, Cameron needs people in his Cabinet in the mould of Ken Clarke. But keeping Ken in Cabinet for his easy and affable way with the voters is insulting to him and to many of the views he holds.
Julian Assange is accused of rape. I thought this whole 'it was only sex without a condom!' thing was cleared up by now, but I've still been seeing tweets to that effect over the weekend. You can read a list of the accusations here, but to summarise: he's accused of holding a woman down in order to have sex with her, penetrating a woman in her sleep, and having sex without a condom against the woman's wishes.
People are bonkers. I know this. I witness it on a daily basis and have learnt in recent years that 'normal' is not something that happens in humanity.
In 1942 William Beveridge, an economist, published the 'Beveridge report which identified five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idl...
This week, after the eight defeat on the legal aid bill in the house of lords a source close to Ken Clarkes responded by saying: "It's yet another example of Labour peers behaving like they're in the Greek parliament, not the House of Lords." This is wrong and its not Labour.
Today peers will vote on amendments that will decide the future of the legal aid budget for over 645,000 women, children, families, pensioners and citizens in England and Wales. Sound off for Justice and the group campaigning against the bill all recognise that we must save the taxpayer money. This has never been and issue and we know how to save £40 million more than the government. What is in contention is how we do this and what is 'fair and reasonable'?
The truth is if the Legal Aid Bill is passed we the taxpayer will be left with millions of knock-on costs. This is something Ken Clarke and co. are desperate to keep away from peers and the public.
I believe passionately that a civilised society looks after people who've been preyed on by criminals. That means supporting victims and witnesses, wherever they are, to help them find the strength to move on with their lives after crime.
Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, has published proposals to give divorced and separated fathers stronger rights to see their children as part of an overhaul of the family justice system.
Last week the true impact of the government's cuts became very clear. It is women, children, the elderly and the homeless that are going to get hit the worst.
After today there are six further days in committee and then four days of report stage, where we are likely to see key votes take place. Is it too much to hope the government comes to its senses?
