Bill of Rights

Why is it that over the course of the last year the three main parties have all decided that a Bill of Rights in one form or another is needed. The Conservatives have a panel of jurists which will report to the Shadow AG Dominic Grieve at some point this year. You know therefore that this will be a serious effort. Tories are committed to scrapping the HRA and replacing it with a Bill of Rights which will be more at home in our legal system. It may also contain some responsibilities and other features such as fixed election dates.

The Labour party and Brown in particular has mentioned a Bill of Rights yet I am not sure of its contents at all. He seems to recognise that the Tory proposal is more than just an attack on the HRA (which is what Falconer thought it was). It involves the whole "Britishness element" too. But Brown surely can't on the one hand be associated with the HRA and then feel the need for a Bill of Rights too.

As for the Liberals they too have mentioned having one during their recent conference and connected to te environment in particular. Apart from that I don't know much on their proposals.

But why have they all decided to have one. Does the Chahal judgment have that much significance to Labour and the Tories (I think it does- it certainly has annoyed every Sec of State of the Home Office since Howard- John Reid recently got very angry when talking about it). Are Labour that unsure of their own HRA or that worried about the cohesiveness of the union. For the Tories is it a middle way between ECHR and HRA.

What is certain to me is that this seemingly insignificant issue will actually become increasingly important over the next year or two. Why- well it has everything in its mix. Britishness, community cohesion, deportation, HRA, ECHR, constitutional issues etc etc.