The issue of the future of the HRA is an important one. Particularly if we do get a Conservative government. Here is something I recently wrote for a progressive Conservative blog:
[http://www.platform10.org/2009/11/the-hu...]

I agree that there are perhaps some things which the HRA could have done better - it hardly, for instance, opened up a national dialogue on HR which is badly needed in many circles. Though the positives of keeping the Act surely outweigh the negatives; what sort of a message would it send to China, Russia, Burma, and indeed any other country with a shady HR record if we were to repeal our own HR legislation - we all know the world’s media is a feral beast and in the context of the torture allegations which have been flying around since Iraq and Afghanistan it will hardly so our international credibility any favours?! What position would it put the courts in given the crystal clear judgements in Jackson v AG? Would it really have any effect on the media’s sceptical attitude? How much would it cost? How long would it take? What dialogue relationship would it dictate for our courts with Strasbourg? What difference would it make to call it a “Bill of Rights”; it could still only ever amount to a another repealable statute if the Tories choose to challenge Laws LJ’s notion of “constitutional statutes” as articulated in Jackson. There are so many more questions which are as yet unanswered - including, rather worryingly as it’s been on the Tory agenda for so long, a complete list of what the substantive changes will be - this lack of planning and foresight alone is an ominous sign. Overall it is blindingly obvious that this is just another political gimmick and there are far too many variables and unanswered questions to make it an intelligent or worthwhile legal move - perhaps they should find themselves a less precious toy instead of playing with grandmother’s best porcelain china!

I agree that the current force behind repealing the HRA is purely a political gimmick. It still seems to be a popular policy among sections of the media and certain voters who still see human rights as a protection for those least deserving in society. The fact that the replacement by a British Bill of Rights has not been overtly advertised as securing more effective safguards against an absue of power by the state and rather as a more ‘tailered’ Act to better suit our constitution supports this notion. Furthermore it is telling that there has been no mention of including economic and social rights, as opposed to just civil and political ones, in this new framework. This is indeed an area in which the HRA and the ECHR is lacking and so may call for an evaluation at national level as to how we imporove this form of rights protection. Overall I think there is a need for much more information on what the Conservatives percieve the problem with the HRA to be and how they plan to remedy what ever it may be. Only then can we have an informed debate about how to best protect human rights and civil liberties under our constitution.

It is right to say that incorporation of the ECHR into UK law through the HRA enables people in the UK to enforce their convention rights in UK courts. However the difference between being able to enforce your rights in the UK and taking a case to Strasbourg cannot be underestimated. The European Court of Human Rights is the busiest court in the world and with a backlog of around 80,000 cases it takes around 5 years to take a case there.  I think it is therefore wrong to say that the HRA does not confer any new rights, as what good are rights if you can’t enforce them in your own country? The HRA is of constitutional importance as it gives the judiciary more robust powers to review both legislation and decisions by the government,: A v Sec of State for the Home Dept (the Belmarsh case) is the clear example. Through this power the Judiciary have been able to build up a body of UK case law by reviewing each relevant case against the convention rights, which then specifically protects the rights and freedoms of those in this jurisdiction. I believe that before the HRA is repealed there should be very serious regard to the previous Conservative governments abuse of power in the area of civil liberties and the Judiciaries lack of review powers under the common law doctrines to deal with it.

I am of the view that for all its shortcomings the HRA 1998’s incorporation was commendable and no doubt one the best reforms implemented during the New Labour era, notwithstanding New Labour’s own attempt to undermine this very Act in later years, most notably the extension of the period of the detention without charge. I agree that the HRA is highly unlikely to be repealed and I think it is a distasteful and a misleading poltical gimmick attempted to please not only the tabloids press, in particular the Murdoch press which has now switched allegience to the Conservative Party to put the pressure on Cameron to adjust his policies accordingly. I despair the fact that a media mogul should be steering the government policies and our laws. It is an unacceptable situation where the people’s fundamental human rights are put at stake in order to win brownie points from not only political donors but also the media bosses who have becomed accustomed to covertly-sometimes overtly- intimidate and pressurise our political parties into giving up commendable reforms. It would be great if the tax-payers took the burden of supporting the political parties financially-it is certainly more desirable to fund them than the MPs expenses unrelated to their duty. This would limit the impact of the political donors on party policies. I am not sure how tabloids’ explotation of our political parties for their own ends, at the expense of the people can be disregarded by the government and the opposition who become so nervous that they panic and come up with the most ludicrous and untenable of suggestions-namely the repeal of the Human Rights Act. It is based upon an inherent prejudice that sees some people undeserving of the protection provided by The Human Rights Act. The more political parties exploit the heightened tension amongst some disgruntled voters whose actual grievances that cause them to see some individuals less worthy of humane treatment, remain unaddressed, the more erosion of humane values enshrined within this Act that has sadly been turned into a ‘symbol’ of discontent thanks to the reckless short-termism that disregards the very bedrock of a civilised society.