Acceso usuarios
Peter Munce
In June 2006 the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron made a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies. In it he committed a future Conservative government to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replace it with a British Bill of Rights (BBoR). The purpose of this article is to subject David Camerons BBoR proposal to closer scrutiny by placing it in the wider context of Conservative thinking about constitutional reform. It does this by revisiting an essay published in 1980 by the late and distinguished political scientist, Nevil Johnson, where he explored some of the core dilemmas for Conservatives that arise when they find themselves in the position of protagonists for constitutional reform in Britain. It is argued in this article that Johnsons original essay offers a useful analytical lens through which to consider further David Camerons proposal to replace the HRA with a BBoR. The central argument of the article is that Camerons approach to addressing Conservative concerns about human rights law in Britain by advocating the repeal of the HRA and replacing it with a BBoR is inconsistent with many of the key themes of a generally orthodox conservative approach to constitutional reform.
