Chain of command
1 + 1 + 1 = 3…
1… Cabinet Office: New bill to enable delivery of swift and efficient regulatory reform to cut red tape
Cabinet Office Minister Jim Murphy today introduced a Bill to Parliament that would provide a swift and effective mechanism for delivering the Government’s radical regulatory reform programme to cut red tape.The Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill aims to make it quicker and easier to tackle unnecessary or over-complicated regulation and help bring about a risk-based approach to regulation.
+ 1… Marcel Berlins: Why is the government seeking the power to pass far-reaching laws without parliament’s approval?
Well, so what? We’re only talking about minor, technical laws which don’t raise any controversial issues, aren’t we? No, we emphatically are not. Try this one. It will become possible for the government, by ministerial order, without a debate in parliament, to create new criminal offences, punishable with less than two years imprisonment. It could also, according to Cambridge law professor John Spencer (who is not alone in his analysis), introduce house-arrest, give the police stronger powers of arrest and interrogation, set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges. Yes, there are safeguards written into the bill supposedly to prevent this sort of dictatorial behaviour, but my experience of safeguards is that they look better on the page than they perform in practice.
+ 1…Charlie Whitaker: The tipping point?
If you have any remaining doubts that this government is opposed to democracy - opposed to popular representation, opposed to debate - now would be the time to discard them. The fact that this government has not recognised this bill for what it is - a proposal for major constitutional change that hugely empowers the executive - means that we should distrust them. Even if it turns out to be because of their ignorance, and not because of malign intent, we should distrust them. In a democracy, the government needs to demonstrate that it knows what democracy is: how it works, what it takes to sustain it. A government that fails that test is dangerous.So what now? There is a lot of mud in the air: we need to prioritise. There are a lot of bad bills before parliament: this is the worst.
I think that an attack on parliamentary democracy trumps all former political prejudices: we should support any organisation that can effectively oppose this government within our democratic structures, and we should act. Today.
= 3… Not Little England: Getting New Labour out of office
The New Labour project started as a method of making Labour electable again, by bringing under control their less, shall we say, thoughtful, elements. In government, it has taken that controlling tendency further. It is taking control of our lives…
Posted on February 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
| See also • Do keep up, John • Is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill back? • Bill and coup |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Affronts to democracy, L.A.R.R.B., UK politics |
All of which would be wonderful, if they didn’t go on to conclude that what *really* needs to happen is for the Lib Dems to become more electable…
And that comment was far too bitchy. It’s actually a good idea. I just hope it doesn’t become partisan. Must. Drink. Coffee.
You’re forgiven. I agree though - if any “Get Labour” movement hinges on a Lib Dem renaissance then it’s knackered.
I’d advocate an “anyone but Labour” tactical vote but that will mean convincing an awful lot of people that New Labour is no longer their friend. And confiscating Polly Toynbee’s nosepegs.
Re. Toynbee - last time I checked, she was hoping for a hung parliament (Hey Polly, only three years to see if can get that freak result! We’ll just gloss over the fact you argued completely the opposite position before the 2005 election, shall we?) She also thinks that New Labour is now to the right of the old SDP (about 5 years after everyone else). However, I don’t expect her to go for an ‘anyone but Labour’ tactical vote in 2009 or whenever.
In many seats around the country, the LibDems are the only electable alternative to Labour, thus to get Labour out we need electable LibDems.
In others, such as mine, it’s a straight LibDem/Tory fight; I’ve also said that in those, the fight has to happen in order to determine the balance of the govt that replaces Labour.
Justin, you’re right, anyone but Labour is the way to go, as long as it’s someone that can win; too many people think tactical voting means voting for their candidate or not voting for someone they can’t stand.
As Andrew has pointed out to me, that could even mean voting UKIP. I’m not (quite) sure I could do that, fortunately I don’t need to worry where I live.
Opposition doesn’t have to be partisan: I think it’s worth supporting Labour MPs who are willing to vote against the government on principle.
… and by ’support’ I don’t mean voting for them. We’re not due for an election: votes are irrelevant for the time being. We have to use other channels.
As Andrew has pointed out to me, that could even mean voting UKIP.
Actually, it’s more that we have to convince UKIP supporters to vote for someone who can win. Trickier…
I’ve pointed out before that New Labour came into existence at the point that Labour decided - for obvious and honourable reasons - that they weren’t going to argue among themselves any more. The upshot of this, however, was a generation of politicans who have no experience of, or interest in, discussion: they decide on policy without any democratic process and then implement it. They are managers and administrators rather than politicians, which is why the resemble heads of department (and pretty mediocre ones, in general) rather than Old Labour bruisers.
So of course they’re not really interested in democracy - they only want it as a signature of assent, if you like. Mind you this is fairly standard for political centre in any case (note how they like to re-run ballots, be then on European integration or housing stock transfers, if they don’t at first get the result they wanted.) The centre likes the forms of democracy, but not, so much, the reality.
Charlie, you’re right, as Unity has pointed out more than once, it has to be about principles. I’d hate to see, for example, Bob Marshall Andrews out just because he’s “Labour”, but got to be careful where and what you look for.
Andrew, hmm, yes, misunderstood you. Some UKIP are pretty committed now, although I think Cameron’s moves may go somewhere to bring sanity back in; Euro elections are of course different anyway, getting split ticket votes may be something to work on.
The government cannot claim ignorance, it has been told time and time again, by non-partisan people, that it is treading on democracy. The Campaign for an English Parliament’s been at it since 1998!