Back in 2006, a bunch of concerned citizens were worried about an obscurely-named piece of government legislation called the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. In short, the bill’s purpose was to cut red tape, to allow ministers to amend troublesome laws on the fly without all the bother of consulting Parliament and all the tedium of democratic accountability. The bill, in the words of the Guardian’s Marcel Berlins, would make it…

…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.

All very scary. I, like many others, had quite a lot to say on the matter.

In the end, thanks to some tenacious campaigning in and out of Parliament, by the time the bill became law it had been sufficiently neutered enough to assuage many concerns. One of the larger ironies was that it later emerged that, despite the fears on one side and the assurances on the other, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act did not repeal or amend a single law in its first year of existence.

Now, however, it seems the government is resurrecting the spirit, if not the letter, of the bill. Thanks to the hawk-eyed heroes at Spyblog, we find that nestled away in Jack Straw’s new Constitutional Renewal Bill there is this:

Part 6
FINAL PROVISION

43 Power to make consequential provision

(1) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may –

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act;

(b) include transitional or saving provision.

(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Now, as Tom at Blairwatch points out, this clause allows ministers to amend laws created under this bill only. It does not give a free hand to amend any and all laws willy-nilly as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill did in its original form.

That said, we are talking about bill concerned with constitutional changes - you know, stuff fundamental to our democracy. I’m still ploughing through the draft bill so I’m not entirely sure just how worried we should be at this stage.

I suppose you could take one of two views on this - whichever people take, the government only have themselves to blame. The first would suggest that New Labour ministers hold democracy in contempt - they’ve never been very keen on openness or accountability or parliamentary scrutiny and are more fans of the sofa government and the backroom fix. As such, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and the clause in Straw’s new bill are manifestations of that.

The second view, which I’m more inclined to take at this moment in time, is that these things are like backdoors in computer systems. I think they’re a tacit admission by the government that they’ve been experts at passing spectacularly bad laws over the last 11 years. And so, they’ve learned the trick of the self-amending law. If something goes wrong, they can sneak in the back and tinker with the law until it’s running a little more smoothly. It does away with all the hassle of having to admit that they’ve cocked up.

I wonder if all of this isn’t anything more sinister than New Labour knowing they’re, well, a bit crap, and are fed up with it being pointed out all the time.

Anyway. Definitely one to be aware of and one to watch.

(More at Ministry of Truth)

(Some background here, for those coming in late.)

This from the Save Parliament email list:

Go to it.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (provisionally) receives its Second Reading in the House of Lords on June 13. England play Trinidad and Tobago on the 15th but it’s probably not too late to move the debate back a couple of days to give it some covering fire.

Bit late with this, but still.

Government amendments (PDF, not for the faint-hearted) to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill were smuggled out on May 4 under cover of the local elections and cabinet reshuffle madness. While the amendments were taken at face value by some and greeted as a climbdown by the Government and a victory for the protesters, others do not see any significant changes or safeguards in place.

This from Save Parliament’s latest email bulletin:

Our initial reaction to the amendments was literally, “We’ve Won!” but after careful and detailed scrutiny by ourselves and a number of law professors we have uncovered that the bill still threatens democracy in much the same way.

…

The most worrying of the amendments is the use of the Law Commission. A minister may implement Law Commission recommendations ‘with or without’ changes’. This means the minister can used the bill to amend legislation based on the minister’s inital idea, regardless of the recommendation from the Law Commission. The bill also threatens the independence of the Law Commission, which presents a huge threat to civil liberties.

The bill still does not mention business, which means a burden can be anything a minister considers to be such, unless it affects only a minister or Government department. If a minister considers that trial by jury is a burden on the police, it could be abolished, for example.

Most of the bloggers (this one included) and the (very few) journalists who were chasing this before the local elections seem to have put their feet up when they should in fact be loading for bear. Coverage has all but dried up except in a few oases.

There’s also the business regulation aspect to consider which hasn’t had the scrutiny that the constitutional ramifications have (justifiably) enjoyed. As a comment on this post on the Save Parliament blog points out:

I always said this was a big business bill, not a civil liberties issue, from what I had read about it from Gordon Brown.

Its purpose is now explicitly to unilaterally strike out health&safety and environmental legislation that gets in the way of Profits. There is no counter-balance whatsoever to this primary purpose.

I believe that they originally hid this legislative intent inside the wider and more loosely defined powers in the hope that no one will notice. Now they will have to answer unavoidable questions, like what pollution regulation do you want to get rid of? Anti-pollution regulation is very popular, which is why we have it, and why they think the only way to get rid of this obstruction to profits is by executive privilege — ie the whim of some busy minister who believes that the Buncefield oil fire was just an accident and doesn’t see why the oil companies should pay.

Tony Blair likes to boast that the UK has “one of the most flexible labour markets of any major economy”. And under the L.a.R.R.B. it’s about to get positively flaccid. “Flexible”, to my mind, is another one of those leprous euphemisms so beloved of the low-wage conservatives that comprise the current class of professional political and business leaders (embodied in the stout frame of professional misanthropist, Digby Jones). Coming from Labour mouths, it’s redolent of “the working class can kiss my arse…”. Who profits? The widows of men who died after breathing asbestos for a living? They should promise to donate a percentage of any compensation they win to New Labour’s overdraft rather than squandering their time and health in the courts. It’s clear that, in the current climate, a decent lobbyist gets you far further than a decent lawyer.

It’s also worth noting that Blairite myrmidon and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jim Murphy, previously in charge of ramming the bill home, was promoted in the recent reshuffle and is now a minister in the Department of Work and Pensions. The bill is now being steered by the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the erstwhile cack-handed chief whip, Hilary Armstrong.

According to the Save Parliament blog, the Bill is to pushed through its final stages on May 15 and 16. In other words, like guff through a goose.

New Statesman: John Pilger sees freedom die quietly
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.

more…

It’s later than John thinks. The Bill has passed not only its Second Reading but also its Committee Stage in March. It is due for its rubber stamping, sorry, Report Stage and Third Reading before it proceeds to the House of Lords where, it is hoped, it will be eviscerated.

Update: Thanks to Davide for this: Via Spyblog…

Financial Times: Blair backs down over regulatory reform bill
Jim Murphy, the cabinet office minister, said the government would back down from the highly contentious plans to cut the bureaucracy burden on business and amend the proposed law, which has been dubbed a shortcut to dictatorship.

And from The Guardian there’s this:

He added: “We always said we would listen, and for the last couple of months we have been looking at drafting amendments to do two things: deliver better regulation agenda but also take the constitutional debate off the table.

“It will make it impossible, not just difficult, to do the sorts of things which some people have raised.”

Call me cynical, but this is going to be like the proverbial game of Find The Lady. Watch very closely and don’t look away even for a second. It should be noted that during the Report Stage of the Bill, not one opposition amendment was accepted. At this stage any amendment, however slight, can be painted as a concession.

Giving a veto to a parliamentary committee likely to be stacked with placemen doesn’t sound like much of a concession to me. And if all these laws are not made exempt from the bill, then any other amendments would be worthless and Murphy’s assurance that changes to the bill will “deliver better regulation agenda but also take the constitutional debate off the table” will be exposed as a lie.

There’ll be enough pairs of eyes on this that you would have thought any sleight of hand will be exposed pretty quick. You also have to think, however, that the number of amendments required to make this Bill acceptable are legion. I doubt we’ll get them all and it wouldn’t be beneath this Government to paint the opposition as unreasonable and impossible to please once it’s surrendered an inch or two of ground.

So much of what this government does turns on the sixpence of semantic deceit. Why else are city academies allowed to select 10% of students by aptitude in a given subject but not ability. I’ve yet to hear a clear explanation of the difference that did not um, er and wriggle.

No logical contortion is too ridiculous. It’s this most malleable of mindsets that allows the likes of Jim Murphy, sponsor of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, to acknowledge the concerns people have about the bill but still refuse implement adequate safeguards against the new law being abused.

It’s the same deal with ID cards. It’s being sold as a voluntary system but from 2008, when renewing your passport, you will be automatically issued with an ID card. It’s a voluntary system where you must have a card.

I offer this exchange, from the most recent debate on ID cards in the House of Commons, between Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, and his Tory opposite number, David Davis:

David Davis: Does the Home Secretary think that foreign travel is voluntary for diplomats, soldiers and other Crown servants and their families?

Mr. Charles Clarke: It is not compulsory.

Six impossible things before breakfast? When it comes to believing utter rot, New Labour make the White Queen look like Richard Dawkins.

More on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - if you’re not a fan of democracy look away now.

Remember, the Government say this bill is to reduce the burden on business: to cut red tape. As the Minister for Incipient Totalitarianism and sponsor of the bill, Jim Murphy says:

The real danger is what happens if we don’t introduce a bill of this sort. We are trying to do all we can to maintain UK competitiveness, business competitiveness, economic growth, employment levels in a global economy where we face challenges from the emerging economies.

That being the case, take a look at this list of Acts or Parliament (via Nosemonkey) that will not be exempt from part one of the LARR Bill - the part that allows government ministers to change whatever law they like without arguing their case and putting it to a vote in Parliament.

Doesn’t look good, does it? The Identity Cards Act 2006 isn’t even law yet. If the Government don’t want it to be a burden on business, why not draft it properly right now? You know, to save on all the fannying about later. And the Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 to 1862 is a real hindrance to business is it? The Succession to the Crown Act 1707? Magna Carta 1215? What about the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989? “Well, profits wouldn’t be down by 50% if it wasn’t for that meddling Official Secrets Act”.

Everybody knows Digby Jones and the CBI are interfering porkers worried about the contents of their troughs but I don’t remember them saying the Church of Scotland Act 1921 is a threat to jobs and economic stability.

I think it’s now clear what Jim Murphy meant when he said, “But our ambitions are wider than that!” This list gives lie to the insistence that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is merely a device to cut the red tape supposedly throttling British business’ ability to compete with Far Eastern sweat shops. It’s not hyperbole to suggest that this constitutes little short of a coup d’etat.

Kill the bill.

 Bit late with this but I thought it worth noting. Simon Carr, the Independent’s parliamentary sketch writer has been one of the - disgracefully - few journalists to cover the passage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (another excellent summary here) as it blazes, white hot, through the firmament of democracy. It would be no exaggeration, in fact, to to say Carr’s been all over it like Charles Clarke with a pork scratching he’s found down the back of the sofa.

Carr wrote twice last week about the Bill’s passage through its committee stage. Tim Ireland has a transcript of the first article. The second one is reproduced here (with apologies).

Carr has an interesting point to make about Jim “offers long and detailed assurances about how the Act will and won’t be used. When asked to put these assurances into the Bill, he refuses” Murphy, the minister steering the bill:

This extraordinary bill has been introduced by Jim Murphy. Slim, smiling, aquiline. Jim is usually the best-looking person in the room. But he is one of nature’s sub-alterns and to give him this monstrous regiment was an act of brilliant cynicism by the business managers. Call the Bill something people don’t even want to remember and give it to a nonentity who won’t survive a 2 per cent swing at the next election.

Murphy should be careful. The way this government’s careering out of control a 2 per cent swing might end up being wildly conservative. He could find himself back on Civvy Street and on the rough end of his own legislation, like the rest of us. As Harrison Ford’s boss says to him in Blade Runner: “If you’re not a cop, you’re little people”.

He’s something of an enigma, is Murphy. Entered Parliament in 1997 aged 30 and used to be president of the National Union Students (and we know how far some of them they - Straw, Clarke - went). And that’s it. No word of what he did before he became an MP or what life experience qualifies him for kicking the legs out from under democratic accountability. I smell professional politician but may be wrong.

(It also shores up my theory that we’re entering a new Dark Age - yet another young prince unwitting or uncaring of what he’s doing.)

Carr continues, chillingly:

The crucial clause will slip through, masked by the insignificance of the sponsor and the anaestethic properties of regulatory regime merger clauses. “But our ambitions are wider than that!” Sunny Jim said, inadvertently. How wide? Only time will tell.

But our ambitions are wider than that! Tomorrow belongs to Jim. It really can’t be stressed enough that this is a dangerous, undemocratic piece of law dressed up as dry, dusty and dull parliamentary procedure and sold as a wonderful cure-all for business red tape. It’s a medicine show and Murphy is the snake oil salesman.

The Bill passed its committee stage on Thursday which means it now passed to the House of Lords for consideration. You can only hope they’ve the energy for another fight. It’s not enough just to be angry or worried or “Bloody New Labour!” about this. It’s time to Save Parliament.

It’s beautiful, it really is. Elegant in it’s simplicity, fiendishly brilliant.

First we have the Democratic Process Bypass Bill (”Jim Murphy offers long and detailed assurances about how the Act will and won’t be used. When asked to put these assurances into the Bill, he refuses.”) allowing government ministers to do that they darn well pleasey - introduce new laws, change existing ones and other such trifling matters - without recourse to Parliamentary oversight.

Then, we have Geoff “what’s wrong with managerialism?” Hoon proposing the curtailment of parliamentary scrutiny, the coup de grace, if you will:

The Guardian: Hoon plans curb on MPs’ questions

The right of MPs to table questions is to be curbed for the first time in the history of parliament, according to a confidential document being circulated to ministers by Geoff Hoon, the leader of the house.

He proposes in the consultation document that MPs be limited to 10 questions a day after a huge rise in queries, particularly since the last general election. Part of the blame is being put on MPs’ researchers drawing up a lot of questions.

You have to admire its perfection. If this plan was a car it’d be a jet-black needle-thin roadster that did 500 miles to the gallon and had room in the back for three kids and a grand piano.

Damn those MPs and their insatiable quest to get to the bottom of what the Government is up to. And if only they’d do something meaningful with the largely worthless, and yet jealously guarded, information they’re able to glean from ministers.

But couldn’t the Government just hire some more special advisers or build a bigger instant rebuttal machine? They haven’t been overly concerned about the cost of government before now. How long does it take to write prevaricating and misdirecting answers anyway? Does Adam Ingram get a sore wrist writing:

We make every effort to minimise any impact of the coalition’s military action on the Iraqi population. We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi military personnel or civilians killed during the conflict.

He, along with other ministers, should stick a list of such stock answers up on his office wall as a cheap and easy labour saving device.

The thing is, when Geoff Hoon frets that Ministers are being deluged by questions what he means is they are being asked too many questions like, “how many civilians did we cluster bomb today?” and not enough like, “minister, why are you so great?”. I doubt he’d be complaining very much if every question could be answered with a friendly, “everything’s smashing, thanks for asking”.

It’s like his recent kite-flying exercise suggesting that the Salisbury Convention (the agreement by which the House of Lords do not vote against legislation that featured in the government’s election manifesto) should become legally binding. If the Lords, and as an advocate of Lords reform I’m writing this with gritted teeth, weren’t doing such a bang up job preventing our New Labour overlords from establishing a junta, I imagine Geoff wouldn’t even have heard of the Salisbury Convention.

Democracy, I suppose, is all well and lovely until it’s not working for you. In fact, that would make a good line in a speech given by the New Labour minister of your choice: “Democracy - if it’s not with us it’s against us”. “DEMOCRACY: TRAITOR” the Sun headline will screech. Efficiency is our friend now. It’s the roughage that will ease the passage of so much New Labour legislation.

The real worry is that Labour MPs are permitting these excesses four years out from a General Election. God knows what they’ll be prepared to vote for on the eve of election, with sub-zero polling figures, when Blair/Brown says “back me on this measure [pensioners to be turned into Soylent Green, restrictions on the consumption of Victory Gin or whatever] or lose your seats”.

To steal a phrase: I know why the sun never sets on New Labour: God wouldn’t trust them in the dark. Geoff’s doing his best ARP warden impression.

Be afraid…

When I finally succumb to the massive and catastrophic stress-induced brain embolism that is to be, no doubt, my final destination, the coroner will be able to pinpoint the exact time of my terrible and furious demise to whenever the pointless junior government minister, with a dangerous and unpopular piece of new law to sell, was interviewed on either the Today programme or PM that day.

This morning it was the turn of Jim Murphy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, to usher me just that little bit closer to the big dirt bath. Murphy was the luckless soul sent onto the Today programme to defend the Furtherance of Unaccountable Government Bill.

For those just coming in, otherwise known as the The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, this harmless-sounding piece of proposed legislation has bothered those of us who think that our barely accountable public servants - along with our not at all accountable public servants - should be kept on a short lead.

This is arcane, hard to engage with stuff but nonetheless has some pretty far-reaching consequences should this new legislation’s power fall into the wrong hands. It’s about how we are governed and what those to who we lend power do with that responsibility. Put simply, the The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, as Marcel Berlins explained in the Guardian the other day, will make it…

…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.

That’s a pretty disturbing list, I hope you’ll agree, particularly under this Government who are determined to be harder and nastier than anybody else when it comes to The War Against Terror. However, taking the basic premise that we’re not dealing with Darth Vader and friends here, I think we can say that if/when this bill is passed into law, dissidents aren’t suddenly going to find themselves locked in their homes with their knackers wired to the mains.

But this is to forget the law of unintended consequences and as I said the other day, when your thirst for efficiency, or for at least the facade of efficiency, produces the same outcome as if you’d set out to be a bastard, you can’t really be too sore, in my opinion, if people start refusing to make the distinction. “I didn’t mean to hurt you,” often doesn’t impress those on the receiving end. It’s a trust thing.

Murphy, in his interview (RealPlayer required), did at least give a few a pointers as to what intentions lie behind the bill and just what the Government mean when they say they will place “safeguards” within it. As to why we need the bill, Murphy played his joker, otherwise known as the Armageddon Gambit. Don’t argue your case on its merits, just scare the shit…

The real danger is what happens if we don’t introduce a bill of this sort. We are trying to do all we can to maintain UK competitiveness, business competitiveness, economic growth, employment levels in a global economy where we face challenges from the emerging economies.

You hear that? If we don’t get this bill, we’ll be swept away by the Yellow Peril. Don’t blame Jim when you’re sewing Nike Trainers for a bowl of rice a day - it’ll be those bastard urban intellectuals’ fault for not letting him have his way.

So where’s the pressure for this bill coming from? Here’s the clue: UK competitiveness, business competitiveness, economic growth, employment levels. The “stakeholders” in this bill are the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, British Chambers of Commerce.

Maybe paying a bunch of honking, low-wage conservatives massive salaries is all that stands between me and a third world lifestyle. I’m not a complete idiot, maybe British business is being choked by red tape. Frankly, I don’t really care enough to find out, although anything that might make Digby Jones’ life slightly less pleasant can’t be all bad if you ask me.

But you would have thought that that Britain’s business community would have had the law of unintended consequences closer to the front of their minds when they lobbied for this bill, particularly after Gary Mulgrew, Giles Darby and David Bermingham fell foul of the Extradition Act 2003. The CBI were sanguine about swarthy suspects being sent to Guantanamo under the act but less happy when it was applied to wholesome white collar types. Where’s Martin Niemöller when you need to misquote him?

But all is well. There are safeguards to protect us:

The relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal.

For those with rich and fulfilling lives who don’t know what select committees are, here’s how Charter88 defines them:

Select Committees of MPs carry out detailed investigations into policy matters and government performance, and produce detailed reports and recommendations. Sometimes they will draw up and recommend new legislation.

Hurrah, you cry, select committees will save us. Ah, well, Charter88 continue…

But there the Committees’ powers end: they have no right to ensure that their reports or recommendations or proposed Bills are debated by parliament.

…and it gets worse…

Currently select committees, whose job is to investigate government actions and performance, are appointed by the government - i.e. the whips draw up the list which is then voted for en bloc in the House.

Members or select committees are placemen allocated according to the electoral makeup of Parliament. What if, and I know this is a cynical point of view, any scrutiny of new laws proposed by a government under this new power divided along party lines with the dominant (that is, government) party winning the day?

Regardless of party loyalties, however, it’s still MP’s faults that we need to give the Government power to do whatever it likes. As Murphy said:

We still have a one-size-fits-all approach to better regulation. So regardless of how controversial or the scale of a proposal, it still has to go through exacting parliamentary scrutiny which some times can take a number of years. That’s not fit for purpose.

MPs. The lazy bastards. Clogging the arteries of the mother of parliaments. And on our dollar as well. But if that’s the case - and Parliamentary scrutiny isn’t always the constitutional bottleneck Murphy would have us believe - why does Andrew Miller, Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston and chairman of the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee (on this occasion, granted, no placeman he) say:

Our report demonstrates that the current parliamentary procedures are not responsible for delaying regulatory reform orders.

Our evidence shows that departments themselves are slow in identifying the unnecessary regulations, in bringing the proposals for orders to Parliament and in making the orders once Parliament has made its recommendation on individual reforms.

Government departments. The lazy bastards. Clogging the arteries of the mother of parliaments. And on our dollar as well.

The interview’s worth listening to if only to hear how little Murphy gave away. He’s few bones to throw to the dogs on this one. Oh, and the - ha ha! - jokey exchange about Prince Charles - ha ha! - and his so-called dissidence right at the end, oh, it’s a hoot.

So, as others have said it’s time to do something. My MP doesn’t answer my letters so I’m left whistling in the dark somewhat. Her voting record wouldn’t inspire confidence even if I wasn’t being ignored. So I charge you, dear reader, with the noble quest of rescuing democracy.

To conclude - with the requisite glib, broader point - in the nine years since they came to power New Labour have pretty much made it up as they went a long. That’s what happens when you swap principle for power at any cost - the star you used to sail by is obscured by clouds and you have to guess where you’re heading. There are no lighthouses. When Gordon Brown ascends to the throne he may find himself a Scot on the rocks.

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…