Scrapping the Human Rights Act removes the safeguards that protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state

The very same week in which David Cameron has been confirmed to a second term as Prime Minister offering stability, with Parliament barely having had the chance to reassemble, the new Conservative government has already lit the fires of controversy. Cameron has promised a unified Britain, yet one of his first announcements is the intention to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998 (Watt, 2015), which is likely to be the first of several big and divisive threats to the Union during this Parliament.

The Human Rights Act is woven deeply into the British social fabric. The Welsh Labour government is resistant to changes, SNP-led Scotland already has one foot out of the door and even the Good Friday Agreement for peace in Northern Ireland would have to be tampered with (McDonald, 2015) - and all of the devolved institutions possess the power to deny consent to alter this matter within their jurisdictions (Brooks, 2015; Scott, 2015).

Tensions are already high between Westminster and Scotland over the UK's continued membership of the EU - with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon demanding that a majority be secured in each of the UK's nations for secession from the EU to go ahead (Sturgeon, 2015), and Wales is divided on the issue (ITV, 2013). This attempt to undermine British commitment to Human Rights is only going to ensure that the fault lines are riven deep between the nations of the UK, almost entirely by the hands of the Westminster Conservatives.

Under the stewardship of Justice Minister Michael Gove, formerly in charge of much criticised education reform (Garner, 2013), the Conservative plan is to end the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the UK Supreme Court - although it would leave in place the right of British citizens to appeal to the ECHR themselves (Watt, 2015{2}).

But the Human Rights Act is so much more. It allows British citizens to contest abuses of their European human rights in British courts and requires public institutions to abide by those rights (Stone, 2015). Those rights, contained within the European Convention on Human Rights - in the drafting of which Britain played a large part - protect things like the right to life, privacy and a fair trial; the freedom from torture, servitude or slavery; and the freedoms of conscience, expression and association.

While the UK has largely kept pace with the rights contained within the Convention, its removal takes away certain fundamental guarantees. A particularly important guarantee that will be to remove executive action from accountability to citizen's human rights (Starmer, 2015).

The Convention, and the Human Rights Act, are also nothing to do with the EU. They were implemented rather by the regional international organisation the Council of Europe and is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights - to which 47 states are signed up as members, a much wider membership that the EU, which include Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Norway, Switzerland and others, all in addition to the 28 members states of the EU.

As much as it is guarantee of the human rights of British citizens, the Human Rights Act 1998 is also an international commitment to upholding the principle of human rights, which requires signatory states and their lawmakers to avoid infringing, or treating arbitrarily, the rights of its citizens contained within the ECHR.

When the convention was signed up to by Churchill, all of the rights were covered by the UK's laws already (Johnston, 2015). But over time they have been applied in ways, and legal challenges have been made through the European Court, that have led to new rulings that have proved a difficulty for the UK - legal representation of migrants, arbitrary removal of the voting rights of prisoners (Ziegler, 2012).

There have been claims this means Europe is making laws for Britain, but this is simply an evolving legal system, responding to a changing environment, in the same way as the British system has evolved. But it also stands as a safeguard, aimed at ensuring that people all across Europe have access to same basic rights, and have a place where they can appeal against arbitrary treatment at the hands of their government. With regards to the prisoner voting 'scandal', Aidan O'Neill QC (2011) said that:

'What is important... is the example one gives. One of the big issues facing the European Court of Human Rights is teaching newly democratic States about democracy. One of its biggest client cases is Russia. Another one in terms of democracy is Turkey. It is a problem with the Council of Europe mechanisms that some States simply do not fix their systems as they should do and it would be a great pity if a long-established State — the United Kingdom, which was there at the founding and there at the drafting — were to set an example to other States in the Council of Europe that they do not have to abide by the law. This is where politics and international relations come in. It is incredibly important that the rule of law be respected at an international level because if we have law/law then we do not have war/war.'

There are concerns, even amongst some potential Conservative rebels, such Kenneth Clarke and the former attorney general Dominic Grieve who disagree with the move (Watt, 2015{2}), that repealing and replacing the act constitutes a step towards rejecting government under the rule of law.

Concerns have risen again about the kinds of laws the UK government is seeking to pass to which European human rights challenges would have posed a strident difficulty. Amongst them, the Snooper's charter remains the one to provoke the most controversy (Carr, 2015). The so called 'communications data bill - for which previous attempts to pass such a bill had been blocked by the Liberal Democrats (Rawlinson, 2015) - forms part of the scramble by Conservatives to give security services more access to our personal data as a way to see attacks before they can happen (Johnston, 2015), to which Boris Johnson said that:

'I'm not particularly interested in all this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they're a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to.'

These attempts have been criticised for attempting to take away important liberties for very little gain in terms of safety. One particular observation being that regular investigative methods have proven far more effective, based on specific, targeted and legally accountable procedures (Carr, 2015).

The SNP is already looking to rally Conservative backbench rebels against the party's aim to scrap the Human Rights Act (Brooks, 2015). With the devolution legislation, that brought into being both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, there comes the demand of compliance with the Convention and the 1998 Act by the decision-makers of those jurisdictions.

It is possible and likely that Holyrood will refuse to give consent to Westminster, and the Welsh Labour government has derided the attempted repeal as making Britain 'look like a Banana republic' (BBC, 2015). Even the Good Friday Agreement, essentially an International Treaty - that made it possible, in partnership with the Irish Republic, to establish a peaceful Northern Ireland - guarantees that the European Convention on Human Rights is completely incorporated into the law of Northern Ireland (McDonald, 2015).

Recently, these rights have become a political football, bound up with sovereigntist, anti-foreign narratives that have gained traction in the UK. But underneath that is a struggle between competing visions of conservative and liberal societies.

Human rights are, by their nature, fundamentally liberal. They are the defences of the individual against the many, or against the abuses of the state. They represent a guarantee, whatever the circumstances, that people are always afforded an essential respect. In that sense, they undermine many of the institutions and social orders inherent to old conservatism, from churches to the state, where a premium is placed upon hierarchy and adherence. Over the years, the more modern versions of conservatism has taken on elements of these liberal values - but only so long as those liberal values remained 'safely' contained within conservative frameworks and limits (Willetts, 2013).

By standing outside of the British state - outside of any state - the rule of human rights law instead forces conservatism to work within a liberal framework. That is what keeps the rights of individuals safe from arbitrary treatment at the hands of ideologically motivated political decisions, and ensures that we can get justice when those rights are infringed. Trying to undo that framework would represent a step backwards, favouring the power of the state over the individual.

Election 2015: What the past can tell us about the SNP's role at Westminster

Talking to Andrew Marr on Sunday, David Cameron argued that a Labour government backed by the SNP would be calamitous (Wintour, 2015). He said:

"This would be the first time in our history that a group of nationalists from one part of our country would be involved in altering the direction of our country..." (Marr, 2015)

Historically that is not, however, strictly true.

If, as the polls suggest, Labour and the Conservatives are unable to break their deadlock and a hung parliament results, then we could be looking at a repeat of 1910. Swap a few of the parties around - Liberal Party and Labour Party, the Irish Parliamentary Party for the Scottish National Party - and you have a similar outcome on 7th May as occurred in 1910: the Left and Centre outnumbering the Right, and a Centre-Left minority government propped up by a party of regional nationalists (Collins, 2015).

In the years preceding 1910 there had been a withering struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives over reforming the power of the lords, to limit the power of the Tory landowners and to allow for the passage of the Liberal 'People's Budget' (Cavendish, 2009). That struggle resulted in the first election of 1910, where the Liberal majority was reduced to a Liberal minority. In an attempt to break the deadlock, a second election was held in December - but that only produced the same result.

The third largest party was the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) with 74 seats, a full 70% of the seats in Ireland - a sweep not unlike that expected from the SNP in 2015 (Kuenssberg, 2015). Since the early 1880s, the IPP had been allied to the Liberal Party in pursuit of Home Rule for Ireland (Baston, 2015). After decades of campaigning, their position of power in propping up a Liberal minority allowed them to finally achieve the passage of a Home Rule Bill.

The comparison to Irish Nationalism of the early 1900s should not be overstated, though. The struggle for Irish independence carried barely suppressed undertones of direct action and violence - reprisals for suppressions and centuries of denied reform (Baston, 2015).

Yet there remain some interesting comparisons. When the IPP secured itself the role of kingmaker in a hung parliament, it succeeded in putting Ireland right at the centre of discussions. Having been defeated in the 2014 referendum, Alex Salmond had acknowledged that the independence question would be off the table for a generation (McVeigh, 2014). But that doesn't mean that, if as expected the SNP become the third largest party in Parliament, there isn't a Scottish corner to be fought at Westminster - including the promised further devolution.

However, Ireland becoming the centre of political attention in 1910 was resented in England (Boland, 2015). That same sort of resentment is being seen again, with an anti-Scotland sentiment on the rise, fed by Right-wing propaganda (Milne, 2015). But that negativity has been countered to a degree, though, by the popularity of Nicola Sturgeon, who has received a positive reaction outside of Scotland.

The SNP's clear stance of supporting a Labour government, and opposing a Conservative one, will also have helped (The Guardian, 2015). Again, that is not unlike the IPP, who stood alongside the Liberals for decades in the campaign for Home Rule - although they had little alternative with the Conservatives utterly opposed to their aims.

While adopting a clear position - being clear as to what side the party will take in advance - has let voters know what to expect, the SNP's announcement of who they will side with in a hung parliament will restrict their bargaining power, just as it restricted that of the IPP. Yet the SNP has tried playing the two big parties off against each other before, and that did not achieve better results.

In 1979, James Callaghan's Labour minority government was defeated in a motion of no confidence - by just one vote - which ushered in the Thatcher-Conservative era. Callaghan's minority government, in return for SNP and Plaid Cymru support, had legislated for devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. Struggling to pass the act, the focus switched to a referendum. Devolution for Scotland was narrowly rejected by referendum, though not without controversy (Aitken, 2015). Having lost a referendum, the SNP took the Conservative side and moved to oust Labour. The SNP subsequently lost most of their seats at the general election.

One big difference between 2015 and either 1910 or 1979, it that reciprocity on the part of Labour to the overtures of the SNP has been at an all time low (Ship, 2015). Even if a Labour minority governs after the next election, the SNP's direct influence may well still be further restricted.

Yet the party's seats, and those of the other possible members of the discussed Progressive Alliance bloc that would sit in the next parliament (Mason, 2015), could still act as a significant anchor-weight, holding the government in the Centre-Left.

In doing so, the SNP seem to have learned the lessons of the past. They has striven to avoid accusations of splitting progressive voters by committing to being part of a broad progressive voice at Westminster. The problem is that Labour seem to have learnt the lessons as well, believing they cannot afford to appear weak and at the mercy of sectional interests if they want to keep the support of those voters they appeal to on the Centre-Right.

Having now staked out their territory, the SNP can no longer afford not to keep to their Left-leaning commitments. Any failure or perception of wavering will see the party facing the same fall from grace as suffered by the Lib Dems. Those factors should at least ensure a progressive, Left-leaning parliament if people in Scotland vote for the SNP.

One final interesting note: the strength of Ireland's voting block in the 1880s was strong enough to force a reorganisation of parliamentary workings. In order to stop the IPP voting block from using Parliament to force its issues onto the agenda, the establishment's answer was to give the the government more power over Parliamentary proceedings and reduce the power of backbenchers (Baston, 2015).

The rise of the SNP and impending minority administrations - by restricting the ability of central government to act with impunity while they hold a majority - could now return that power back to Parliament. Far from disassembling the country in the next Parliament, the SNP could just be in a position to do the whole country a favour.

Election 2015: The BBC's opposition leaders debate sees Farage cornered by the Left and lash out at the audience

David Cameron's refusal to engage with debates has led to some very awkward arrangements, one of which was tonight's debate. The leaders of the opposition present - Ed Miliband for Labour, Nicola Sturgeon for the SNP, Leanne Wood for Plaid Cymru and Natalie Bennett for the Green Party - but not Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats, who by virtue of a deal between broadcasters and the Prime Minister ends up left out (BBC, 2015).

With no place in the previous Prime Minister's debate, and no place at the opposition debate, its hard not to think that the Lib Dem have been unfairly excluded. Yet the debate itself was lopsided enough without another party of the Left or Centre taking to the stage.

With the leaders of four broadly progressive parties lining up against the leader of one Far-Right party, it was always going to feel like they were ganging up on UKIP's Nigel Farage. Farage was clearly feeling cornered - going so far as insult the entire audience and the BBC for being too Left-Wing.

The fact is though that the parties on the stage, not only the independently selected audience, were fairly representative of national polling - 13% for the Far-Right UKIP, 39%+ for the Centre-Left parties, a difference of at the least 3-1, before you even add on the numbers for the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

That was reflected throughout the debate. Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett regularly ganged up on both Nigel Farage and Ed Miliband - challenging the Far-Right anti-immigration narrative of Farage on one side and calling for Miliband to join their anti-austerity progressive movement on the other.

That three-way alliance seemed to be a clear precursor of what Sturgeon hinted about at one stage: a Progressive Alliance bloc in the next parliament formed by MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (Mason, 2015). On the present polling that would mean a 57 seat bloc pressuring for Left-Wing anti-austerity policies.

Once more, there was less discovered by the debate than many would have hoped. However, it did provide a platform for a challenge to Farage and UKIP's anti-immigration, anti-EU, narrative that has been contested far too little over the last five years. And, once again, it showed the UK's voters that there are alternatives, and that multi-party politics is a very real possibility. Those, at least, are some positive in favour of the debate format.

Election 2015: SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Regional Parties

Following their landslide victory in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections, under Alex Salmond, the SNP (Scottish National Party) looked strongly placed to lead their country towards independence. Yet in 2014, independence was rejected by referendum.

In the aftermath Alex Salmond resigned and his former deputy Nicola Sturgeon stood unopposed to succeed him (BBC, 2014). Yet even defeat and a change of leadership has not shaken the party's momentum. Polling suggests the party is set to sweep the Scottish parliamentary seats on 7th May.

All of this seems to suggest a complex relationship between the SNP and their supporters.

Despite the likelihood of the party becoming the third largest group in Parliament in May, their Westminster aims are not particularly grand. Their primary ambition appears to be shared with the Green Party: to keep pulling Labour leftwards (Greenwood, 2015).

Former leader Alex Salmond, who is himself running for a seat at Westminster, has given his support to the SNP backing a Labour minority government in the likely event of a hung parliament (The Guardian, 2014). There has even been talk of a progressive alliance being formed in the next parliament between the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (Mason, 2015).

It is this that complicates the SNP's relationship with its supporters - the tension between the SNP's separatism and many of their supporter's Left-wing politics.

The SNP has become the latest home for progressives looking for a new alternative to the Labour Party (Wishart, 2015). Like the Greens, the SNP have benefited from the Liberal Democrats going into government, and in doing so being seen to have sacrificed their values.

The SNP has certainly tried to live up to the view of the party as Left-leaning. They have promised to oppose austerity, with a fiscal plan that sees efforts to reduce the deficit spread out over many more years than their rivals - meaning less to cut in the short term and more to spend (Settle, 2015). The party has also pushed a number of progressive policies over the years, including the opposition to tuition fees, trident and private financial initiatives in the NHS (Wright, 2012).

However, the SNP has also faced criticism over individual liberties issues - such as the Liberal Democrats opposing their attempts to create an integrated National ID database (Macwhirter, 2015). The party's own traditional leanings, historically towards the political Centre rather than the Left, have also shown through in places with a very friendly attitude towards business - seen in Alex Salmond's tendency towards low corporation taxes (Wright, 2012).

The Labour Party have, however, make it all too easy for the SNP to present themselves as different, a radical alternative, to the parties of the Westminster establishment parties. Labour were all to quick to side with the Conservative No-vote campaign against independence (Wishart, 2015).

At the 2015 Scottish leaders debate, Labour leader Jim Murphy did a good job of summarising the attitude that has turned many, both in Scotland and across the UK, away from the party (STV, 2015):

"Only Labour is big enough. Only Labour is strong enough."

That sense of entitlement from Labour has not convinced many. They persist in demanding that everyone unite against Tories, but insist that it only be in rank and file behind Labour.

Even with Labour largest impeding themselves, the SNP still struggle to establish themselves as a mainstream party due to their commitment to independence. Their separatism compromises the party's chances of having any major influence at Westminster, other than as an outside critic - strength at Westminster will all be about reinforcing their national influence in Scotland (Rawnsley, 2015).

Behind the tensions between those wanting independence and those wanting an alternative party of the Left, there is also a struggle between the newer Left-wing and the older Centrist party that is trying to juggle a coalition of different interests. And gives the party a New Labour feel to it.

The question is, without the issue of independence to unite them, is the SNP ultimately more progressive and more conservative? Unfortunately the party's contradictory policies - anti-austerity but pro-business, anti-Trident but infringing civil liberties - that make it a broad tent Centre party trying to keep everyone happy, also make it impossible to be sure of the party's ideological convictions.

---

Prospects: 53 seats (for a gain of 47).*

Possible Coalition Partners: Labour (271 seats), Liberal Democrats (29), Plaid Cymru (3), Green Party (1).

Verdict: A broad tent Centre party, trying to keep and Left and Right happy in a delicate pro-Independence coalition. Leaning towards progressive for now, but not with any overwhelming conviction.

---

Plaid Cymru

In Wales there is almost a complete contrast to the SNP's success. Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales - a party of much stronger Left-wing convictions, has struggled against a Labour Party much more assured of itself than its Scottish counterpart.

Both the cause of Welsh devolution and support for Plaid Cymru were launched onto the national stage in the 1950s and 60s by the controversy of the creation of Llyn Celyn reservoir to supply Liverpool by the drowning of the Welsh village of Capel Celyn.

Over the next three decades the party saw its support rise over the 10% mark until Labour held the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997. At the first Welsh Assembly election Plaid took 28% of the votes to become the official opposition to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. Since then the party has remained firmly established in the Welsh Assembly, governing in coalition with Labour between 2007 and 2011.

Yet at Westminster the party has hovered at around 3 seats. Having the opportunity to takes its Left-wing regionalism to a national audience in the leaders debates under leader Leanne Wood will likely help the party immensely (BBC, 2015). However, the party is still only in fourth in Welsh opinion polls - behind even UKIP - on 11% and may be on course to lose one of its only 3 seats in the Commons on 7th May (The Guardian, 2015{2}).

Until the party finds a way to break Labour's stranglehold on the Welsh electorate - twenty of the forty seats in Wales are safe, with Labour holding seventeen of them (Williamson, 2015) - Plaid Cymru will likely remain an addendum.

And the rest of the regions

In Cornwall, Mebyon Kernow - Party of Cornwall or Sons of Cornwall - are the local equivalent to the SNP and Plaid Cymru. They support devolution for Cornwall, and share the Left-of-Centre approach of their equivalent parties in Scotland and Wales. So far they have only achieved representation on Cornwall Council.

As for Northern Ireland, that is an almost entirely separate political system within the larger UK system, largely divided between sectarian interests. Here is a link to some seat predictions for the seats in Northern Ireland.

Election 2015: Seven-way debate sees the Left outnumber the Right to talk about ideals, fairness and being open to the world

Before tonight's ITV leader's debate began, the focus had been steadily upon David Cameron and Ed Miliband (Battersby, 2015; Hawkins, 2015). There are obvious reasons why. Polling continues to suggest either the Conservatives or Labour will be the biggest party come May - and that it will be close however the ballot papers eventually stack.

But the debate itself reflected the other thing that the polls have been saying: British politics has fragmented. There are now five parties that compete across the whole of Britain and are polling over 5%, and two regional parties with a large and growing presence within two of Britain's countries. For those smaller parties it was always going to be a major boost just to be invited to the show (Robinson, 2015).

Yet they did so much more. Natalie Bennett of the Green Party and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru talked about ideals like freedom of movement. Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP spoke of ending austerity. Nick Clegg joined in, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, to challenge Farage over the need to be open hearted and fair.

Despite Farage's best obsessive anti-European efforts, he was repeatedly overshadowed by the three female leaders of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. Their anti-austerity message and language of hope frequently stole his thunder and ensured that the Left outnumbered the Right in every round of the debate. Whenever he tried to push the anti-immigration and anti-EU agenda, there was a voice - as there has been far too infrequently in recent years - to speak of being Pro-European as being open to the world, positive and fair in how we treat other people.

The reality is that TV debates have been shown not to play a particularly useful role in analysing the ideas of the different parties (Cooper, 2015). But what this debate has done is to provide people with reassurance that there are other alternatives out there. There are different narratives to the mainstream idea of fiscal austerity. There is a will to be open and co-operate, rather just compete and alienate. As Natalie Bennett put it:

"If you want change, you have to vote for it. You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.