Parliamentary sovereignty in practice’; 350 the courts will be instructed which cases are not ‘serious’ enough to take; and they will be told how to interpret a host of terms in the new Bill from ‘torture’ to ‘family life’ to ‘responsibilities’. Even the judicial application of the ‘doctrine of proportionality’, applied since the HRA to evaluate competing rights and interests, is given notice. 351 The former Attorney General, in a powerful speech in December 2014, lamented ‘the failure of ambition represented’ in the policy document ‘and the narrowness of its moral and political vision’. 352 For me, personally, to conclude, as the document does, that the consequence of these proposals will be to make ‘the Supreme Court . . . supreme in the interpretation of the law’ makes me want to grab for my George Orwell.