This is one of many reasons why so many people marched in London.

Sorry that was an answer to Whitewaves question.

Meanwhile our new Home Secretary has made a strong statement about 'protecting our borders'. Yes, it was about a different case, but let's see what she can and will do.

The sooner we stop obeying the diktats of the ECHR the better, or rather those of the Human Rights Lawyers, of which Starmer was one, the better. It is good that people are beginning to realise that it was not ineptitude that prevented the Conservatives from reducing mass illegal migration as they had promised, but the ECHR.
Starmer's professed policies are at a testing point; it will be interesting to see where his true loyalties lie.

Sago

This story is not quite true.
Wife no2 and 3 year old twins have joined him in the 1 bed retirement apartment.
The other children and wife live elsewhere in the UK.
Wife no2 came here on a spousal visa.

Amazing as a good friends son couldn’t bring his lovely Russian wife to the UK despite her having the promise of work, her husband is a high earner and they had accommodation.
She got here eventually but after jumping through many hoops.

Well it was the Daily Mail!!!

Galaxy

I am becoming more wary, I think it is possible that it may also be used to overturn the supreme court ruling on the definition of sex/ single sex spaces (there is a challenge in progrss as far as I understand) - I am watching that with concern. But I think I am certainly no longer at the place of 'oh of course this is a good thing'.

Baby and bath water?

Until someone comes up with as good a protection for me and my family I am very, very wary over those who glibly say it should be repealed.

Much wiser people then those repealers constructed that law.

There is no doubt the government should address public unrest about such concerns as the OP 's.

These concerns should addressed with understanding and suitable language; not only the particular case of Abdelrahmen Abouelela but general unrest.

“Even the worst people deserve a legal defence.”

But I believe he will go.
Deportation is automatically attached to the sentence and his family are not here.

As someone said upthread, doing away with the Human Rights Act harms us all.

Sources:
BBC News, Evening Standard, Telegraph, GB News

Meanwhile we currently have a certain US President here who must be absolutely appalled at our inability to protect our borders.

I know he is universally hated on here but I still maintain we need a leader here like him who Gets Things Done.

JenniferEccles

Meanwhile we currently have a certain US President here who must be absolutely appalled at our inability to protect our borders.

I know he is universally hated on here but I still maintain we need a leader here like him who Gets Things Done.

🙄

JenniferEccles

Meanwhile we currently have a certain US President here who must be absolutely appalled at our inability to protect our borders.

I know he is universally hated on here but I still maintain we need a leader here like him who Gets Things Done.

Absolutely. Faults a-plenty but Donal Trump Loves America and will always put it first.

You must have a fundamental lack of understanding of how Parliamentary process works if you think that Farage will get anything done. Fortunately, it take more than a Sharpie pen.

PaynesGrey

You must have a fundamental lack of understanding of how Parliamentary process works if you think that Farage will get anything done. Fortunately, it take more than a Sharpie pen.

Oh, I don't know. We may not have 'Executive Orders' but we have Henry VIII clauses and Statutory Instruments. Given some extremely vaguely worded or detail free legislation these little instruments can be used to great advantage. And if something is in the manifesto the government was elected on the House of Lords can't even delay it.

Lawyer David Allen Green is certain that our Constitution could easily be used for any purpose by a government with a sufficient majority (I wish our current one would take note)

I got Chatgtp to precis it for me but the whole is worth reading

Start

Green argues that the UK’s constitutional system is vulnerable: a sufficiently radical, illiberal government could accumulate unchecked, near-absolute power. Existing legal and political safeguards are weak and likely inadequate to restrain such a government.
davidallengreen.com

Key Arguments

Structural Weaknesses

The UK lacks a codified constitution. Power is not defended by a single overriding document but by conventions, statutes, judicial review, and institutional norms.
davidallengreen.com

Because many constraints are customary or based on precedent rather than entrenched legal rules, they can be altered or ignored by political actors with enough will.
davidallengreen.com

Precedent of Overreach and “Only Good Fortune”

Green suggests that past governments have pushed constitutional boundaries more than might be noticed, but have been restrained in practice by political opposition, civil society, or books of habit. If those brakes failed (or if the government is more radical), the system could tilt.
davidallengreen.com

He emphasises that what has prevented worse outcomes historically has often been “good fortune” rather than strong structural checks.
davidallengreen.com

Paths to Absolute Power

Through control of Parliament (especially with a strong majority), altering or repealing laws that protect liberties or institutional checks.
davidallengreen.com

Through politicising or undermining independent institutions (courts, the civil service, regulatory bodies) that might act as barriers.
davidallengreen.com

Through attacks on transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—if the government limits judicial review, weakens legal protections, or reduces oversight.
davidallengreen.com

Comparison with Other Systems

Green compares the UK constitution to others (implicitly to the US) and suggests that the UK’s lack of entrenched checks makes it potentially more fragile against an illiberal takeover.
davidallengreen.com

Warnings & Implications

It’s not a prediction that all upcoming governments will become illiberal in this way. Rather, it's a warning that if a government with radical or illiberal objectives comes to power, it has the tools to remould the constitutional order.
davidallengreen.com

The piece suggests that citizens, institutions, and legal frameworks should pay attention now: to reinforce norms, safeguard institutions, and consider what legal reforms (e.g. entrenching some rights) might be needed to prevent abuses.
davidallengreen.com

Implicit Assumptions & Critiques

Assumes that a government with illiberal intent will have not just electoral power but also control of Parliament and sufficient obedience (party discipline etc.).

Assumes that civil society, media, and courts, which have so far acted as de facto checkers, might be compromised, co-opted, or rendered ineffective under a more radical government.

The piece doesn’t deeply model what popular resistance might do, or times when international or legal constraints (e.g. treaties, human rights laws) could pose obstacles.

End

davidallengreen.com/2025/08/yes-an-incoming-illiberal-and-radical-uk-government-would-have-absolute-constitutional-power/#respond

What does this have to do with the march on London? I thought that was a peaceful demonstation of great British values or something?

Not to do with terrorism? Maybe I'm mistaken...

Sarnia

JenniferEccles

Meanwhile we currently have a certain US President here who must be absolutely appalled at our inability to protect our borders.

I know he is universally hated on here but I still maintain we need a leader here like him who Gets Things Done.

Absolutely. Faults a-plenty but Donal Trump Loves America and will always put it first.

I wonder if you can explain why a President who 'loves America' is putting thousands of US citizens out of work, has raised the cost of living for them by imposing tariffs on imports, is allowing Medicaid to be cut, leaving poor US citizens without access to health care, is allowing the country to become vulnerable to environmental disasters by cutting funding to deal with them, and other anti the nation's wellbeing actions which I'm sure other posters will contribute?

Can you explain how all this shows his love of America? What will it all achieve?

(And, incidentally, he is only president of part of 'America', a good part of the continent comprises many other countries over which he has no control)

keepingquiet

What does this have to do with the march on London? I thought that was a peaceful demonstation of great British values or something?

Not to do with terrorism? Maybe I'm mistaken...

It's to do with racism. Which is under debate on this thread.

(I suspect we've moved on from arguing the 'peacefulness' or otherwise of the march.)

Indeed. The sudden withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment last year was an example of hasty secondary legislation using a a Statutory Istrument . But look at the uproar over that and the damage that has done to the Labour Government even though they have now made, if not a U turn, at least a J turn.

The Lords could have overturned the SI last September. Baroness Ros Altmann did try with a Fatal Motion but it is not the policy of a party’s peers to vote against what has been passed by its MPs. Thus we saw Lords, who I would regard as socialists, voting against Altmann's motion.

Here’s where Farage would be scuppered. What Reform doesn’t have are any peers to support them in this way.

Rees Mogg at the Reform Conference said they would need to appoint 500 new Reform peers. Where would they find them? Even if they could find 500 names to nominate they would have to get past the vetting of the Appointments Committee. I can’t see it happening with its current composition - a chair who saw most of her family wiped out in the Holocaust and a committee member who is very hot on DEI. Trying to stuff the Lords with Reform peers in order to rip up the Human Rights Act isn’t going to cut any ice.

I enlarged your message to me Whitewavemark2 to see if you had put a smiling face in agreement with me!!

I'm not sure I would take Rees Mogg's word on constitutional matters, PaynesGrey. The Lords can only delay. They can't prevent.

MaizieD

keepingquiet

What does this have to do with the march on London? I thought that was a peaceful demonstation of great British values or something?

Not to do with terrorism? Maybe I'm mistaken...

It's to do with racism. Which is under debate on this thread.

(I suspect we've moved on from arguing the 'peacefulness' or otherwise of the march.)

No not racism but anti illegal immigration.

Yes they can.

The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, establishing the ultimate supremacy of the Commons, do not apply to secondary legislation. The Lords can kill an SI with a Fatal Motion. It ends the Parliamentary legislation process and forces the government to start again if they wish to re-introduce legislation. It is rarely done but it can be done and could be done if Reform tried to rip up the HRA.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/fatal-power-lords

JenniferEccles

I enlarged your message to me Whitewavemark2 to see if you had put a smiling face in agreement with me!!

😄😄 you should know better than that!

It is rarely done but it can be done and could be done if Reform tried to rip up the HRA.

That would be dependent on whether they tried to do it through primary or secondary legislation.

If it's primary legislation and in the manifesto what could the Lords do then?

The long time it has taken to examine the case of a refugee is the opposite of shameful. I am proud of my country that it has fair laws and moral justice system.

JenniferEccles

Meanwhile we currently have a certain US President here who must be absolutely appalled at our inability to protect our borders.

I know he is universally hated on here but I still maintain we need a leader here like him who Gets Things Done.

Is your contribution usually so simplistic?