egafd.com

At last, someone else enlightened enough to see the real issue & very real threat to our Parliamentary system.

Pianaman, at least we agree one one thing!
But as rrrankin says above, without the balance of an upper house in Parliament any Goverment of the day could pass legislation on just about any "Hobbyhorse" it deemed populist at the time.
Imagine another Mary Whitehouse, MP. Minister for Whatever!
1 Private Members Bill later?
Game Over! Now that's scary!

please acknowledge source material when using it. the last thing we need are irate publishers with battalions of lawyers at their disposal getting the royal hump with us.

if i seem paranoid it's only because i am...

Thats another question. I'm all in favour of checks on the power of government but I would prefer them to be in the form of greater power for the people rather than in the hands of the rich, famous and/or congenitally stupid.

Appologies and point taken.
The acknowledgement got cut from the post in error, won't happen again.

no problem.

an interesting post. we don't debate the perils of creeping unicameralism often enough on this forum.

A quick glance at some unicameral legislatures should be enough for most people to understand the threat.
I find it incredulous that reviewing or revising legislation, could be performed by government appointed parliamentary committees, whilst further constitutional safeguards could be provided by a written Constitution.
The parliament required to carry out these functions would be enormous, painfully slow & open to even greater corruption & vested interest than it already is.
But then again aren't the "gang of three" committed to reform of the upper house to a goverment appointed body? Followed by decimation of the civil service to facilitate the easier passage of government.
Maybe that's what President Blair is after?

I agree, I wouldn't like to see laws forced through on any sort of regular basis, but this particular law has been sabotaged many times both in the Lords and the Commons. That in itself is an abuse of power.
Maybe the government had to make a show of power on this issue as it is the will of the majority, but most people aren't militant enough to march on the issue.

I think the discussion has moved away from the central point of hunting now and is more focused on the parliamentry process, which as said before is a whole new issue.

I feel the ends justify the means now, it was an election pledge and did contribute to my decision to vote for them, the only reason it hasn't become law is down to a minority who have used spoiling tactics in parliament

At the end of the day most people agree fox hunting is no different to say badger baiting and want it banned

I,m seconding that, what fucking rubbish, you can get a report to say anything, especially if it,s of benefit, and as vets make a lot of money out of the countryside, and the fox is way down on thier patient list......
As Mart said, it,s been passed, it will be outlawed, sooner the better.