Challenged - 13 comments
I've been challenged to:
... come up with a good reason to support a bill giving the government the right to enact legislation without troubling itself with getting the agreement of Parliament...Well, I can't, though this is largely because I neither know the background to the bill, nor its intent.
Maybe someone out there could throw some light on it?
Update: One way or another, Owen and Talk Politics have picked up on the article - good. Maybe the wires will be red hot by the end of the day, but I don't think I have anything to add right now. I would at least like to hear an explanation from the horse's mouth - which B4L is not.
Update: The BBC have picked up on this.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
13 comments so far...
I'm not the horse either, and this isn't a piece of legislation I'd been keeping an eye on. But you can read the House of Commons Library Research Paper on it here, or the brief summary of the Bill's alleged benefits from the Leader of the Commons here. The Second Reading debate is today - may be worth reading what opposition parties are saying.
Let me put it in terms that you Labour supporters can relate to. Imagine Margaret Thatcher able to create new law without reference to Parliament. Think what fun that would be.
I don't think it helps to bring Thatcher in, Bish.
I'll add some more thoughts in due course, though you can hardly expect me to back the bill, either as a matter of principle, or out of - that old chestnut - "slavish party loyalty".
IIRC you opposed ID cards. So you are clearly happy to drop your support for your party over a particular bill.
Bringing in the blessed Margaret IS relevant. Anyone in power for too long goes loopy. Mrs T did, and now I think Blair may have tipped over the edge too. We, the people, do not want this kind of law on the books. It's an accident waiting to happen, and it's an accident which could happen to any of us.
Just run through the list of assaults made by the Labour government on our ancient liberties:
Trial by Jury, Habeus Corpus, ID Cards. They can suspend any part of UK law at the drop of a hat including Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. We've just missed out on a major restriction on freedom of speech. There is talk of local elections being suspended.
I don't expect you to support the Bill out of slavish loyalty. But in the light of the list above I question if your loyalty to the party is, in fact slavish.
Where is the line drawn for you? Which of your civil liberties needs to be taken away before you withdraw your support?
Don't sections 13-16 of the act, and in particular the super-affirmative resolution procedure, mean that if Parliament wishes, any order which ministers want to introduce with this bill is only approved if each house of parliament resolves to support it?
I might be wrong, but I reckon none of the people blogging about the 'slide into totalitarianism' or the assaults on our ancient liberties have actually read as far as clause 13.
Dan,
You may be right - I haven't seen anyone explicitly responding to points 13-16. Unfortunately I don't know much about this kind of thing so am compelled to close my mouth rather than find my foot sticking out of it...
Bish,
Well the Margaret reference may be relevant in that sense, but if indeed this bill is "a dangerous slide into totalitarianism", higher principles than our antipathy to her should lead us to oppose it.
BTW, I'm not overly worried about the election threat: (a) it won't happen, and (b) I can well imagine someone deeply immersed in an organisation, a long way from public scrutiny, saying "what's the point of electing someone for one year", before reason and principle prevails.
Actually there are a number of additional policies/details over which I disagree with the government. On the other hand, I think Labourites are used to separating government and party. While the former is marked by disappointments and "why didn't you?"s, the latter is something that is cherished and valued. I think this is a huge difference between "us" and Conservatives: I've never felt that the latter shared the same mutual respect, and the same idealism and common purpose, whatever one's wing of the party. That's not to deny responsibility for the government we have bequeathed (if you like) the nation, but I think it commits "us" to continuously strive to improve the party and future governments. That's my aim anyway.
Bishop Hill might benefit from working out the distinction between persuasive argument, and argument which is unlikely to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded.
Tom:
I said:
"Trial by Jury, Habeus Corpus, ID Cards. They can suspend any part of UK law at the drop of a hat including Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. We've just missed out on a major restriction on freedom of speech. There is talk of local elections being suspended."
None of this is even a little bit persuasive? Do none of these things matter to you?
Like B4L I'm no lawyer. Tom Paine at the Last Ditch is, and he's worried. Owen is a former senior civil servant, and he is too.
Given the Government's record on civil liberties, I would say a precautionary approach was justified.
Selectively quoting yourself is all very well, but in the same post you accused the PM of being mentally ill. As a general rule (I should say this isn't partisan - I'd object just as much if you said it about a Lib Dem or a Tory), that kind of thing's a bit silly, and makes me reluctant to take people seriously.
You also make a reference to "we, the people", which is a bit pompous, and a bit of a turn-off.
Incidentally, you can read the 2nd reading debate here. While this obviously isn't a knock-down argument either way, the opposition parties appear to be significantly less bothered about this than Bishop Hill is.
By the way, you seem keen on arguments from authority ("Tom Paine at the Last Ditch is [a lawyer], and he's worried. Owen is a former senior civil servant, and he is too"). Which makes me wonder: are you a psychiatrist?
I think that the fact that the bill explains the procedure which is required for any order to get approval from Parliament is quite a good precaution against, erm, the government enacting legislation without the agreement of Parliament.
What do you think, "Bishop"?
Tom
Perhaps you feel that only MPs should comment on bills before Parliament. Are you a lawyer or an MP? Clifford Chance are describing this as "usurping the power of parliament". What do you expect me to do - shrug my shoulders and say "I have no legal training so it's no business of mine"?
Why on earth would I think that only MPs should comment on Bills before parliament? That would be weird. I do think that MPs' views matter a bit, though. So do you. If you didn't, you wouldn't be bothered about a Bill which you think usurps the power of parliament, would you?
Post a Comment
<< Home