Not a lot of discussion about liberty, How very British! We talk about "freedom" in a way that suggests we regard it as a fundamental right of our existence. Further, we take it for granted that we are free in this country. The truth, sadly, is very much different. We are governed; it is as simple as that. I have witnessed erosion of our freedom during my lifetime and we were not particularly free to start with. The right to vote may give the system an appearance or sense of freedom. What issues do we vote on? Nationally, it is probably the major economic issues, inflation, mortgage rates, taxation. At a local level I couldn't even begin to say what motivates a person to vote. Very little judging by the turn out! The Iraq war, one of the most significant events in our recent history upon which we had no real say (in democratic terms, at least). Of course, we can at the next election vote for someone else. People are already doing that but has the Govt. changed it's policy. Our leaders will continue to "make difficult decisions that are in the country's best interests". Really? So, what has the Iraq war got to do with our freedom? The answer is that such undemocratic decisions reveal the true attitude of government towards our freedom. The 42 day rule is a further example of the way in which our leaders are happy to erode "freedom". How do they get away with it? Of course, fear is a very useful tool to manipulate the reactionary masses. There are too many areas of the daily life and freedom of good people that are restricted by the use of fear. The gun law (I am firmly anti gun) introduced a few years ago couldn't make it clearer. Many law abiding citizens were prevented from enjoying their hobby because of a fear of gun crime. Is anyone suggesting that gun crime has been reduced by this law? I believe there has to be a root and branch examination of the power of government to pass laws that restrict freedoms. I am not suggesting that they cannot pass such laws merely that "fredom" needs to be at the top of the factors to be considered. Any system that allows a government to force it's citizens to, for example, wear seat belts or crash helmets (for their own good of course) must question whether individual liberty is being taken seriously enough. I always wear my seat belt and crash helmet when I drive or ride; it seems common sense to me, however I do not think it is libertarian to force others. I do not want to open a debate about the indiviual examples above but am merely suggesting that they are indicative of a society that places less emphasis on individual freedom and more on control and manipulation (for our own good, of course). I hope that, somewhere out there, there is a glimmer of interest in discussing the nature of an individual's freedom in the context of society because without it the rest our our discussions seem a little irrelevant. Good wishes to all!

42 days detention, more CCTV, more government snooping, more government intrusion, lies and deceit by government ministers. Try renewing your Child Tax Credits by phone it's like an interrogation by an unofficial police force. I won't be renewing mines next year I'd rather my child goes without than suffer the that again. I won't be voting Labour new or otherwise either, trust Gordon Brown with liberty and democracy, I don't think so, you know when a politician is struggling they start making stupid mistakes, Borwn is no exception.......be afraid of New Labour.......be VERY afraid!

More like the final chapter in British liberty unless people stop moaning and show the political elite in this country that they know longer have a carte blanche to do as they please. No constitution, an anti-democratic and antiquated voting system, laws passed against the wishes of the majority, illegal wars, lies and corruption. These people do not deserve our compliance as thety are only representative of a narrow and elitist ideology that reflects in no way whatsoever the wishes, views, aspirations of the people of this country.

"A new chapter in British Liberty" on the front cover and "How we intend to erode it" behind closed doors.

ID cards the start of the micro chipped population. We're told we need them because of terrorism but yet they leave the borders open. Remember the 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid bombers all had valid ID. This government certainly dose not believe in liberty. If you want to create a free world check out RON PAUL in America and give him your support.

Blier a Cathoilc and a reformed bloke who will demand the pope move over only one son of god, and it's Blair, what freedom Brown yours or ours.

Why nothing about the single currency in the Queen's speech? Were we in the Eurozone we'd have much lower long term interest rates. What good is staying out doing us? Please tell me why it is so beneficial to the UK that my mortgage is based on a base rate almost 2% about the Euro rate.?

James, I thought many had moved on from the ' but we'll have lower mortgages, and it's easier for holidays'. If all the EU entailed was cheaper mortgages etc., I'd be all for it, but it isn't, it's a pernicious organisation intent on dominating all of Europe. A few controlling the many. I don't mean to be rude, but when I still hear/read comments like your's I despair I really do. I understand you're worried about the way the housing market is going, but do you actually think they're better off in the EU, some countries there have mortgages tied to the government. And as in Spain they're bulldozing hundreds of houses, and making people pay for the privilege. I now hate this country, it stands for nothing anymore, only greed & control.

We have a constitution in this country. It is not their to tell us what we can and can't do it's their to protect us from the abuse or tyranny of government and the rule of kings or dictators. They can't get rid of it so their just hoping we're forget it's their.

The problem with our current constitutional freedoms is that govt/parliament may change them at any time. Gordon Brown is quite rightly giving more power to parliament, however this would have more of an impact on the voters if we had real choice in elections. As it is a large minority of the votes are wasted: tory votes in manchester, labour votes in the south are just some wasted votes. It is little wonder that people can't be bothered when their vote has no effect. A government elected by a minority of the votes cast is not a democratically elected goverment

Have you noticed that their is some thing not right with the way the world is. Go to a pub talk to a wide range of people different ages. different races, different ages, and their'll all be saying the same thing. 'we don't want the EU', 'we don't want the nanny state', 'we don't think the war in iraq was over any thing more than oil' and we no longer believe man made global warming is quite the evil it's been cooked up to be'. But yet the press and our politicians force on us, 'we need the EU', 'your not capable of making your own chooses in life', 'ok we might have made a few mistakes about weapons of mass destructions' but we've now changed the argument to 'we toppled saddam because he was a evil dictator', and their still pushing the green taxes even though we're all sick to the back teeth of it. have you asked your self why? As for our constitutional freedoms they were not put in place to say how we must behave they were put in place to protect us from the tyranny of government, they were put in place to protect the people to create a balance between the people and the government this constitution is now being written out of history they can't remove it they just hope we won't know or forget it's their. Ask your self one more question how many times do you here the our leaders talk about 'the new world order'?.

Would you like to be born in a country with no civil laws,the only way forward is to work with any party who has the best policeys regarding what one is moaning about, or we can sit on our arses and do nothing, me i get up and shout

Go on grow up, we might have what is called a silly Prime Minister, we do not have a dictator, as for having an elected head of state it's not going to happen, if Labour went down that route and then lost the vote they would be finished, The Tories would be in power for decades because they would fight to keep the Royals. I mean far better to fight to ensure only the Royal in charge gets funding and nobody else. But your all talking about smoking, or getting Tony Blair as President, or whom ever it's not going to happen and no party will ever go for it. So a waste of time and space.

Let's talk about liberty and constitution. If the EU treaty/constitution is good for britain then why deny the people of this country an open debate and a referendum on it which you promised us at the last election in your manifesto.

DON'T SMOKE! DON'T SMOKE! DON'T SMOKE! it is a bit silly so DON'T DO IT!

I quite agree. Smoking is SMELLY don't do it. Much love Beatrice

SO what! So what! So what! If you want to be good little citizen and do what ever 'nanny state' tells you to then great! that's your choice. This discussion is about British liberty and between 14 to 18 milllion of us or one quarter of the population have just had one removed. And all off the back of a load of lies being fed to the country that any one who gose near a cigarette will develope cancer. As we're being told 10's of thousands of people are dieing because of this each year please provide me with the names of 3 people who have died through second hand smoke and prove it. Much love Roland.

Sorry couldn't help but to add this i've just beeen talking to a mate who's just been traveling round europe and he's just told me that all these countries have bans but they are just bare face ignored even the police in a lot of these countries just ignore them. On top of this they are all mebers of the EU they get the same legislation and directives as us but again just ignore them. We are mugs!

YES YES THRICE YES!!! I similarly treasure your support. Perhaps we should invite Tim yo convince him that Smoking SMELLs. xx Beatrice

GET OVER IT! Smoking is a discusting dying habit, like many of its addicts! I have had to suffer you people for 48 years of my life, watched both my parents die because of smoking related cancers; my god what will it take to make you people see sence?

I appreciate given your situation that you will quite obviously have the opinion you have. But can i ask you if say just your father was still alive and as a smoker the last thing he had after a life after paying tax his hole life, after having fought or lived through world war 2 the war that was fought to protect not just our country but every country in the world from living in a totalitarian police state in which the state controlled what you thought and what you did and his last comfort in life was going down his local and having a pint and a smoke would you be happy to see him thrown out in the cold ?

Treborc is not accurate with his quotes on overseas benefits. As a general rule in another EC Country you would be entitled to their welfare benefits, not ours. As Britain has the best welfare benefits in the world you would find yourself living for example on a meager Polish or Romanian handout. The only thing thats likely to be better is the Health Service,

Yes Romania and Poland are not yet full members of the EU, all the rest have deals with the UK to ensure anyone coming here are either allowed to keep benefits or can have benefits equal. What your talking about ended sometime ago, you can now retire and keep your state benefits, DLA and IB, JSA of course will be stopped because you not here to seek work. As for the UK having the best benefits that ended a long time ago, the UK now has the highest Child poverty out of the majority of the other EU countries. My father lived outside of the UK for years and kept his benefits.

Does Gordon Brown want a new Bill of Rights, and a new Constitution because he gave the old one away in Portugal a few weeks ago?

LIBERTY BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE ONLY IF THE PEOPLE AND THAT OF COURSE INCLUDES CHILDREN WITHIN SCHOOLS, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE EQUALITY. ACTION AND NOT WORDS WILL INSPIRE THE BRITISH PEOPLE. EMPOWERMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL INCLUDING CHILDREN CAN ONLY OCCUR IF INEQUALITIES ARE TACKLED HEAD ON. CITIZENS, PARENTS AND FAMILIES WHO PLAY BY THE RULES WHO ARE GENUINE, HONEST AND LAW ABIDING ARE NOT SUPPORTED THE WAY IN WHICH YOU PORTRAY. LABOUR PRIORITIES, VISION AND VALUES ARE CONTRADICTORY AND ANTAGONISTIC TO A SOCIETY IN WHICH FLEXIBLITY, DIVERSITY AND COMMON SENSE ARE CHAMPIONED. LABOUR EDUCATION POLICY, ONE WOULD IMAGINE IS THE ENGINE BEHIND CHANGE IS DOOMED TO FAILURE BECAUSE PARENTS, CITIZENS AND EVEN LABOUR PARTY MEMBERS /GOVERNORS ARE HAVING THE WOOL PULLED OVER THEIR EYES. ASPIRE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE BY MAKING A STAND FOR EQUALITY, FAIRNESS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE. IF MORAL VALUES WITHIN INSTITUTIONS LIKE SCHOOLS ARE CONTRADICTORY TO THE VALUES OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM THEY NEED TO ADDRESSED. YOU HAVE NEITHER THE VISION NOR THE DIRECTION AT THIS TIME TO MOVE THE PARTY AND THE COUNTRY FORWARD ACTION NOT WORDS!! PROVE ME WRONG!

You would make a good speech writer.

Before you start on Prime Minister Brown. No PM has ever been voted into offce not William Pitt the Younger nor Winston Churchill...parties decide leaders and the poeple decide which party they want running the country. Furthermore a written constitution isn't going to change this only codify it. At the last general election the people knew that Prime Minister Blair would step down before the next general election, they knew Gordon Brown was his successor and would become PM. If you didn't, then they voted in ignorance, in which case they fell victim to their own lack of knowledge and common sense.

Well just had a post deleted which i left literally 10 minuets ago some one can't handle the truth. so i will repeat it in short. The diferance between what has happened in the past to what has happened to day is in the past a PM has only changed in a crisis situation ie. Churchill took over in war Major took over as thatcher was loosing it. Blair and brown conspiered between them selves . Brown takes over as PM just after Blair signs most of the countries power away to Brussels in return the wounderful EU say they will make him presidant of the EU. Now Brown talks about constitution what may i ask you is constitutional about that arangement? It's political sabotage and treason against the British constitution and the people of this country. As for voting in ignorance wrong we voted on a manifesto which was not just slightly misleading but barefaced lies. We do not just vote on a party we vote on the man/woman leading that party the only time that person should leave that position is at an election or a time of crisis this surely is common decency and respect for the voter which we have seen little of off slave labour nu labour. I don't know how you can defend. And to the idiot's who keep deleting the posts this post will go back on here. If you care about the future Your childrens future then wake up protect democracy. People have been persecuted, tortured , and even given their lives so that we may have democracy and blair and brown have throne it in the bin.

It's a real disappointment that the Labour Party will not discuss the monarchy. Why is this? I'm sure I am one of many who would rejoin if we thought our republican views would at least be heard.

Well it's not going to happen is it.

Well, it should.

No one should be imprisoned without trial. It shouldn't be necessary to say this to a Labour Government, but it is. All this talk about 90 day detention is outrageous. If there's a reason to arrest someone, bring the evidence to a court - that's the start of a 'trial'. All you have to show is that there is a prima facie case and the court will authorise detention. Anything else is dictatorship by politicians.

If we draw up a bill of rights and a written constitution, our government will definately become a federal system of government, like the usa, rather than a unitary government. This will mean that if they continue down that route in the future, county councils will want more powers, as the states have in america and may even in the end be able to pass thier own laws, this will create a mini-american system in which the PM+cabinet will have to follow it and if its not in thier they have to ask a 'supreme court' for the permission. In drawing up a constition it would shake up our whole political system, it cannot fit into our current system. Unlesz it is americanised so to speak. The basic fact is we do NOT need a constition, it will not encrese our liberties just restrict what we can and cannot do.

This is a pedantic point. well I hope it is, because this debate is in great danger of you do not know that Britain has a constitution. It's a non written constitution, but a constitution nonetheles. We have conventions, principles, doctrines, limits. Countries cannot exist without them. Perhaps this is something that the governemnt has not taken into account. Perhaps we need to educate the public as to the constitution we have at the moment so that ordinary people can make up their minds. How can we begin a debate from a place of ignorance?

just too many assumptions! Politics is more often matter of discussions and debate based on real situations although degree of predicablity persists. However, simple speculations harm logical judgement derailing the real issue into noghingness.

Why would they create a forum like this, and then delete/censor posts??? Myself, I think they don't even want to know what we think, they just want to make it look as though they do... Ordinary people like ourselves can say/think what we like, but it's never going to get acknowleged.

The case for a Bill of Rights would be strengthed if the Labour Party adopted a Charter of Members' Rights as proposed in the LabOUR Commission interim report available at: http://www.labourcommission.org.uk

Why does Gordon Brown always refer to Britain when he means England? Can he not say England? its easy if you practice, ENGLAND. Queens speech, references to Education and Health, but Westminster only controls Education and Health in England, but Brown says Britain. School leaving age raised to 18 in England only, Brown says Britain. A policy affecting England only, but authorised by a Prime Minister representing a Constituency outside of England, and who's own Constituents wont be affected, is this Democracy? Gordon Brown, can't say England, dosen't understand the word Democracy.

Homophobic mate, who cares if he says Britain or bloody England or Poland for that matter. god Almighty we are being sold down the river and your on about a bloody word.

ha, it's funny because it's true!!! just like we're all too worried about our carbon footprint, the smoking ban, yob culture (which is a labour creation)... how far will they go to prevent people being bothered about the important stuff?

gordons speech he says he wants better nhs,schools,housing for us he cant provide that for us british people so how can he provide for the rest of the world that comes here for free nhs and benefits get of planet downing street and get down to ground level.mr brown

Because we are part of the EU and when people come here stay her for nine months they are entitled as you are to anything and everything, you go to another EU country you get the same.

so if thats true wouldt you want to stay at home in your own country?

No why, why would you just want to stay here.

So dose that mean if every one in England thought sod living here england it is no longer england any way we may as well live some where hot. Sold up moved to spain, Worked over their for 9 months they would then be entitled to the same benefits as they are over here. If we were also told we could vote we could vote in a English politicians and turn spain into England in the sun. Not sure what the poor Spanish would do but seeing as no one care's about their own people or their own national sovereignty we could all do this. Great last one to the pools a wet banana!!

Last year about 250,000 people left here for the south of France, and about 250,000 left for Spain Portugal and other countries, because the EU see us as being members of the EU and because Spain has an agreement with the UK for benefits and the NHS, do not forget that Spain has an NHS, you can go and work and live in Spain and if needed get benefits. People think it's a one way deal it's not.

This is because they are aliens from outer space every one knows that. Firstly they will take are DNA that way they will be able to divide us into 4 groups: 1) Those that will be good food this is why they want to stop obesity they dont like fatty food. 2) Those that will be good for the slave race mainly trafic wardens, ticket inspectors, bureaucrats, council officials etc.. 3)those that will be good nothing such as mainly nu labour, with most conservative and all lib dems. 4) independent thinkers those that don't spend their entire lives getting brain was by the very independent, non politically bios BBC this is thier Main weapon in advancing their goals to new world order those that don't watch it will be sent to population reduction camps. They will then have us tagged with ID chips or cards so they know which one is for what. Unfortunatly for them they can not invade the earth yet as their deeply allergic to environmental smoke and tobacco it also makes their cloths smell after a night out and they generally prefer not to put clean cloths on the next day if their still alive. As soon as they have rid the world of this evil they will invade.

ha ha... you've been listening to too much david icke mate! there must be something going on though!

there's not even any difference between labour and tory anymore, neither party has any remote sort of clue what this country is really like... they just swan around in their chauffeur driven gas guzzlers on a permanent freebie. as it goes... why would they even give a...about the state of society when they don't really need to? no matter how much anyone else has to shell out, they're still getting their big fat lifestyle paid for!

This is one of the bigest problems affecting democracy. The house of commons is now the house of the political classes as peter hitchens put it 'paliment has been hijact by social elitist career politicians'. These people do not represent the public or the average people because they have never lived in the real world they are neither union men or business men and don't see the damage or implications that their ill thought out policies bring upon us the normal citizens of the country.

How can doubling the period of time that people can be held in detention without facing any charges relect a New Chapter in British Liberty. Or is this the Department of Truth speaking?

Written constitution - Its a good idea if captures the essence of the Putney Debates, Paine, Mill and the radical British tradition. Lets hope there is a national debate over this. Trouble is how can the party advocate a constitution, and the inherent defence of liberty that entails, with the proposal to extend the period of detention without charge to 50 days? According to one the signatories of the American constitution those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

I agree whole-heartedly that we should have a national debate about this issue. I do not think however a written constitution is the best method to preserve liberty in this country. Consider that the last time we had a documented form of governance Cromwell was in charge and we rapidly reverted. As for Thomas Paine he was a radical but only in France and America, to us he was a traitor...one we killed for his trouble! Mill believes we should do whatever we want as long as we don't harm people, that rational would denote favouring the more flexible unwritten constitution. Lastly the American signatory to whom you refer is Benjamin Franklin. Dr Franklin was not initially a separatist but wanted mere representation for the colonies and when he did revert to separatism he - like John Adams - wanted to base the American constitution upon the British model and our check and balance of the rule of law.

Labour's policies on families and pensioners Seen in: POINTS TO CONSIDER What more can we do to encourage young people to start saving for their pension earlier in life? Can the Labour Party i.e. Gordon Brown tell me why the young people should start saving for their pensions when they are doing so through their National Contributions. Also why is this necessary when there is a reported £34.6Billion surplus in the National Insurance Fund, which pays all pensions and benefits. This surplus would fund an almost double increase for pensions to our senior citizens, and not have to wait 5 years, which he glowingly promises. Which is immoral to people who are coming to the end of their lives, and will never see the increase in 5 years. This surplus obtains £1.36 Billion a year interest. This interest surplus is ‘Robbed’ by the government when it is immoral to do so, and was promised many years ago this would not happen. Brian B. Walters Labour Party Member 35 years.

Sorry, I placed this in the wrong comment page.

I am glad that Gordon is listening to everybody.He needs to. The proposed new planning law suggests that major planning applications will be done by central goverment. How can I possibly object to a wind farm being built on my doorstep, which will not only de value my property but also be detrimental to my health and that of my family ? Will you listen to me , Gordon ? Is this what you mean about " liberty belonging to the people" ?

I would like to know how Gordon Brown expects to put all his wonderful policies in place, seeing as he is cutting virtually every civil service job? I work for the Education Department (DCSF)and we are being cut to the bare minimum. I have sent two emails to Gordon Brown asking him to explain why he dislikes Civil Servants so much but I have never had a reply (funny how we have to work to the Whitehall standards but he doesn't!).

Glad to see Gordon is championing 'discuss - a new chapter in British liberty.' Well done Gordon,- and here are a couple of questions: Why do MP's ( including you ) have the best pension deal in the land - when all other pension plans are falling by the wayside. And why does the House of Commons Commission restrict access to 'freedom of information' on such subjects??

I am new to the labour party. I joined at the turning of the tide from Blair to Brown. I joined because I believe that New Labour is the best chance this country has to survive in a modern world, while at the same time retaining our British identity. The newspapers tell us that the "honeymoon" period granted by the press to the new administration may be now at an end. My question is when will Her Majesty's Opposition end theirs? The new administration has not had a worthy opposition, to the extent that I am tempted to join the conservative party just to rouse a serious debate in this country! We deserve better from our current opposition, since only when we are tested to the full may we know our full potential. With that in mind I am sickened and appalled at the pm's new suggestion at a Bill of Rights: the laughter which once erupted at David Cameron's mere suggestion of a Bill of Rights has barely begun to simmer down: Yet here we are proposing the exact same thing, shall we be hoist by our own petard? A bill of rights would be a waste of time and valuable debate. We have a Human Rights Act that protects our natural rights; we have laws and precedents, which protect our civil liberties. Not to mention any such document, by our own constitution, could as easily be overturned by a future parliament as agriculture laws. Furthermore for those of you crying out for a republic, beware what you wish for! Rome with all its imperfections and corruption was a republic. The U.S, today's Rome, is a Republic, a feature which did not prevent Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, a supreme court deciding an election or a president taking it to the most ill advised war since the crusades. Even with its written constitution and most clear distinction of separation of powers, it was not protected from this fate. Why is it we connect republic with democracy, written constitution with complete protection and complete separation of powers with equality? As to the presence of a monarchy: It has no more power in this country than I. It is a mere constitutional technicality and far, far, from the constitutional reality that these Republicans would have you believe. The monarchy is the symbol of tradition, nothing more. If anything it is a constant reminder of the peoples representatives triumph over tyranny. On a practical note it does amazing things for tourism and keeps time-consuming pageantry as far as possible from wasting the prime ministers time. If you really want to reform this country, then let us start with the electoral system. That, and that alone, is the surest protection of our freedoms. Let us rid it of its faults, of which there are many. Furthermore at a time when there is nurses on the front lines, fighting the worst conditions of any job in this country: Let's go stand behind them. Let us shout at our party that: we're sick and tired of the cost of education, we're sick and tired of frivolous arguments about a bill of rights, we're sick and tired of the escalating prices of homes, we're sick and tired of foreign policy stagnation and that the people lining the streets to get into our hospitals...well they're just sick and tired! Let's change the country using the system, which has worked for more than three hundred years. Since Edward Coke stated “His Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm” and John Cooke tried a monarch, we have evolved our democracy but always in a British way. It isn’t perfect; it is in fact the “worst, except from all others”. Debate is always useful, except when used as a political distraction. This debate is just that. It's as frivolous as the American debate on flag burning. British history has taught us that only through respecting our traditions and customs can we ensure the success and true longevity of reform. It is the great British paradox. So Let's change this country, but let's do it our way.

Frankly, idea behind constitutionalism is all about public debate. Whether we talk about the French or the American forms of democracy, it is clear that both have been the products of public opinions expressed though their respective constitutions. If, for that matter, constitutional democracy would further democratise the democracy that we have today, then I am of the opinion that we must go ahead; of course taking the people aboard and participating in the envisaged discourse, would be the way to promoting the idea.

There is a democratic system which works well in many countries with or without royalty. It's called federalism. Name me which state in the USA ever sought independance as Scotland may well do?

First I must admit to being Scottish and I am extremly embarrassed by the Scottish Nationalist Party, they took advantage of my country at a moment of vulnerability and dissilusionment, tantamount to political rape. Their rhetoric is good and effective but independnce is the last thing Scotland needs whether it knows it or not. Federalism would quite simply be a stop gap to independence. As for American states who have sought independence: Missisipi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Loisiana, Texas, Virginia, Tenessee, Arkansaw, South and North Carolina. It was called the American civil war, states wanted autonomy and loose connection equating to independence. Britain is too small for federalism in the sense of Russia or the U.S. Not to mention any such policy would reignite the Northern Irish conflict. We would be exchanging one set of problems for another, first of which would be states rights. We need greater control of devolution and more emphasis on national solutions.

I totally agree with your first sentence, I totally agree with your second sentence, but have serious concerns about America.

Your education policy is fine,BUT those young people leaving school,colleges and universities cannot get jobs now,so what will it be like when we have even more immigrants living in OUR country?

I joined the Labour Party in 1980 and I can honestly say that liberty and freedom have never really entered the vocabulary of the party. In this respect the party is very conservative. After making the decision to have freedom of information it is watered down. We have a human rights act where minister after minister is proud of removing rights. We have had dozens of anti-terror laws and restricted freedoms of ordinary citizens. A heckler at Labour Party conference was stopped under section 44 of the 2000 Anti-Terror Laws when it was clear he simply wanted to heckle Jack Straw making a particularly pompous speech on foreign affairs and denying the party a debate on Iraq. Worse still is the compulsory ID card which dramatically removes freedom and liberty from the citizen and hands control to government. In the future life will be by permission of the government rather than government being under control of the people. Unfortunately the Labour Party has never had a group inside it that have campaigned seriously for liberty and the leadership are too easily moved to pacify the right wing press with ever more ill-liberal measures. The terrorists have won because they have turned Britain into a large prison of constant surveilance and the presumption we are all guilty and need to "prove" our innocence with expensive biometric identities. We need to be able to elect all of Parliament and the Head of State. Yet this is another area Labour cannot discuss. New Labour will shortly be debating 90 day detention without trial. During the 1970s Peter Hain and others attacked the South African government for having precisely that measure. Effectively it was internment. We still have control orders where we put people under house arrest through secret tribunals - just like the military junta in Burma. It must be enormously embarrassing for the Foreign Secretary not to be able to raise human rights as a problem in the world's worst dictatorships since New Labour feels able to set aside liberty and freedom so easily. Steve

Scary i think the war on terror is a lie it's an invisible enemy that gives the excuse for government to remove freedom and liberty it's known in the EU as 'the beneficial crisis'. We've all heard both brown and blair rant on about how we can't let terrorism change the british way of life and then as usual they do the exact opposite. As yet their has only been 1 attack by al quieda in this country and this government now wants to remove a basic protection against the police state the fact the police can hold you for i think it's 38 hours with out charge.It wants us lined up and swobed for DNA it wants us effectively microchipped with ID cards all in the name of the war on terror so how is this not letting terrorism not change our way of life? Can i please point out the 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid bombers all had valid ID so what good would ID cards have done us the answer none. If any one reading this really values and worries about their children's future then protect human rights at all costs and put this country back in charge of it's self. Don't be fulled by a worthless piece of paper saying you've got this right or that right because we have plenty of pieces of paper that tell us we have these rights but when push comes to shove they are not worth the paper they were written on.

A people can't be free unless they have the power to elect their leaders. The British people can not elect the Head of State or the Head of Government The posotion of The Head of State is has to be held by the Head of one rich family: The Monarch. The Prime Minister, the Head of Government, is chosen not by the people or their party members or M.Ps but by the Monarch. The British people can only elect members of the House of Commons which is only half of parliament. They are the peoples represtatives but have little or no power. Parliament is openned and closed by the Monarch. Most of the Bills are Government Bills and the Government is the Monarch's Government not the peoples Government.In addition the Monarch has the right to veto her P.M's decision to call an election and all the organs of the state, the police, the armed forces and the civil servants have to be loyal to her and not to the British people. Yet in Gordon Brown's speech on liberty he did not once refer to the power of the Monarchy and the fact that their is nothing in writing to limit her powers.

Oh Scott, seeing as you come across as a very intelligent person you're not being very genuine with your remarks about the Monarchy. You state that Brown didn't refer to the fact that there is nothing in writing limiting her powers. That's because she has none, all her opening of Parliament speeches etc., are just pomp & ceremony. Times have moved on since Kings/Queens rules the roost. They rule nothing now, they're just figureheads. I was very aggrieved with the Queen when I found out that she'd signed all 7 EU Treaties, but on visiting a site very knowledgeable about the EU I was somewhat taken aback to find out that she had no choice but to sign.

What powers does the queen have, come on then you prattled on about her powers what are those.

If we are truly concerned about deepening our democracy then we could start by giving everyone a vote that counted equally. The following words are not mine, but they reflect my feelings exactly. "In Britain we have a dirty secret: the vast majority of voters don't count. Most of us live in safe seats, so we are safely ignored. It makes no difference if a solid Labour seat like Sedgefield is won by 1,000 votes or 20,000; politicians have no incentive to drive up turnout there. So they concentrate almost exclusively on the half a million voters who live in middle-class, Middle-England swing seats, and tailor everything they say to their whims. The rest of us, uncourted and unrepresented, turn off." "The late Robin Cook said the best argument for introducing proportional representation was that it would make the votes of the poor count again, and force politicians to court them. This French election has shown that when they are engaged with, and have real electoral power, the hard-to-reach poor will vote, and in massive numbers." At the last general election I couldn't even vote for my party of choice because (although they ran a national campaign) they couldn't run candidates in every constituency. That would be true for many thousands of people across the UK. As a result my views are not and never have been represented at Westminster. They would be in many other European democracies and I am represented by a MEP. The time when I realised that I had been given a vote in European elections that really counted was the most empowering moment of my political life. Otherwise I feel that the only way to make a difference is to campaign on single issues.

I fully agree with John - in fact, all members of ANY party except Tory or Labour should too. It really is ridiculous that Blair got back last time - and with another massive majority

I fully agree with John - in fact, all members of ANY party except Tory or Labour should too. It really is ridiculous that Blair got back last time - and with another massive majority despite less than 1/3rd of the electorate voting Labour - really does beggar the imagination !

Yes this I can accept.

Liberty belongs to people, not governments OR A MONARCHY. The crucial first step is: A written constitution establishing the country as a republic, with an elected head of state and its people as citizens rather than subjects, and a bill of rights. Incidentally introduction of ID cards would be massively expensive and lead to more identity theft which would work to the advantage of organised crime and terrorists rather than ordinary people.

And who is going to write this bill of rights? The present clique of politicians who have run this country down to its knees. The present pack of scoundrels who go ahead with illegal wars of invasion, who misappropriate public funds for party shindigs in Westminster, who centralise power away from the common man, who offer us elected dictatorships on the back of an archaic ‘first past the post’ system?

Written constitutions are fraught with all sorts of difficulties. They are written by legal beagles whom believe that they should be written in stone or concrete, but, unfortunately they can't adapt to time. For example, in America they seem to get in a complete tangle over a paragraph about carrying guns that was written in a time when the carrying of guns was acceptable and they are virtually stuck with a bit of legislation that is no longer applicable to a modern civilised society. So the way it is written must take into account that circumstances change of time. We are fortunate that Common Law can and does change over time. So I would oppose a constitution like the American's. But a Compact or Agreement between the people and the Government stating both Rights and Responsibilities, show respect for each other and written so as to put each Right and Responsibility into its own Context does have possibilities.

On the other hand, written constitutions do protect people's rights even those which might turn out to be silly or unpopular. The French constitution, for instance, allows the main body to be changed under certain circumstances but stops short and ensures certain basic rights and enshrines the republican system. We on the other hand have no such thing - our leaders (whether politician or monarch) are bound by no such agreement!

we need a full national debate on a proper written constitution,but it will not happen,as for some reason we will not remove the house of lords,the church and the queen,without these institutions been part of a review nothing will be achived,s these are the the real reasons that we have a limited democracy,why are we still subjects? why do we have an unelected upper house? why do we have the influnce of the church invading all corners of our society,when the amount of people who go to church is insignificant. we need a proper review,but it will not happen as we as a country are really not ready to face up to the arcane system we have and get rid of it and create a modern all inclusive democratic system. what will happen is a tinkering around the edges and the real issues will be left alone,as poltically too difficult to tackle.

I agree with Graham above - having one family with the "god given" right to rule us and CofE bishops in the house of lords is scarcely democratic. Neither is the state subsidy of religious indoctrination of school children / young adults. Repeated surveys show that most voters conduct their lives more as humanists than as adherents to a "faith", yet the BBC refuses to allow anyone without a faith to present his/her "Thought for the Day" - and local / central government forums keep on inflicting "prayers" on the rest of us despite all scientific research showing how ineffective praying really is !

Living in America, I can tell you that some of the people who come over here from the United Kingdom are not impressed with our policies. But believe me, Britain shouldn't be too worried about it's government when you look at the statistics that show that Parliamentary Democracy works more efficiently then the form we have here in the good old US of A. But the Labour Party should not be making a Bill of Rights, the Conservative party should be.

Not realy on the subject but just in case you didn't know if you don't want to pay tax in america before you hand in your next tax return tell the IRS you refuse to pay until they show you the law that says you have to pay income tax. Their isn't one. It's against the american constitution.

Ha! I can see it now: "We the people endeavour to protect the rights of married, middle class couples who own land and business..." I'm not saying that Labour would write a perfect Bill but the Tories certainly wouldn't! Any 3such Bill would require not just cross-party consensus but also the involvement of the public. I don't see the need for one, anyway.

I don't remember the Tories seeking consensus when they were taking away the rights of workers. If you want a consensus system of politics in this country then you would need to go for PR.

Well you can bet your life if Brown wants a bill of rights then the Tories have suggested it, he would not know an idea if it hit him on the head unless a Tory threw it. But your right why now does this come out, smoke.

As per my posting below, Brown has been making speeches on the constitution since at least 1992. It's hardly fair to blame him if no-one has read them since it is not a fashionable or simple issue.