The Parliament Act provides a means for the House of Commons to assert its supremacy over the House of Lords. It's been used 4 times in history, but worrying three out of those four occasions were under Mr Blair.
Personally, I'm all for this approach - I'll accept the descisions of any elected government, whatever stance they take on national issues, because they have been voted in democratically, and have the support of the general public. I don't appreciate a largely unelected chamber full of the hereditary rich and powerful telling the politicians what to do. If we vote in a government, then we are asking those politicians to run the country, we're not after the opinions of the old-money land owners. I believe in democracy, and that's just what the Parliament Act enforces. These Lords have a vote too, and that should be the full extent of thier influence on how Westminster runs.
the Dangerous Dogs Act, makes a mockery of the Parliamentary procedure.
Knowing personally a number of people who have been involved with the use of the Dangerous Dogs act, the main cause for concern is the abuse of the laws that the act detail within the court system, by people vying for compensation (sometimes maliciosly, sometimes with obvious ignorance about the true purpose of the act, ie. to protect people from dogs trained to be vicious, or that become vicious when left unregulated by the owner). The law itself, while well meaning in its intentions, has been scrambled and misinterpreted both by the public and the courts. It is certainly due serious revision, but both the motive behind the act and the methods used to inact it are perfectly sound.
Whilst you say you would preffer some form of 'licensed hunting' you have still failed to answer my question; Do you support your leader's intentions to reinstate legalised hunting in its origional form?
-CT
