Slashdot Mirror


UK Parliament to be Made Redundant?

caluml writes "The Guardian is reporting that the current UK government is trying to sneak a new law though in an innocuously named bill called 'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill,' which would get rid of that pesky, interfering need to put laws to the Houses of Commons and Lords to approve. There is already the Parliament Act that can be used to force laws through, which was used recently for the hunting bill. " The original coverage is a bit old but the bill is still being tossed around in parliament. The text of the bill is also available via the UK Parliament website.

3 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. The Queen? by dadragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, this is (theoretically) why the monarchy still exists, unfortunatly, too many people have no respect for what power the sovereign has. She can refuse to sign this bill into law, even if Parliament passes it. Too bad she probably won't as that will trigger a constitutional crisis and put the Queen into a political position which they tend to try to avoid.

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  2. To a large extent..... by mormop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The UK parliament has been redundant for a long time.

    Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, huge parliamentary majorities were won on minority votes thanks to the first past the post, 3 party system. If I remember rightly, Mrs. T held a majority in excess of 300 MPs with only 40% of the electorate voting for her. Tony Blair commanded about 35% of the vote when less than 50% of the electorate turned out.

    With a three figure majority and the back-benches filled with career minded sheep, the government can get pretty much anything they want through so the new law is just icing on the cake. What worries me more is the sort of people they hang with. According to the treasury web site, the following are being flown in by Gordon Brown, the next Prime Minister, to give advice on business in New Britain:

    Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO, LVMH
      Lord Browne, Group Chief Executive, BP
      Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline
      Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation
      Sir Ka-shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Hutchison Whampoa Ltd
      Sir Terry Leahy, CEO, Tesco
      Sir John Rose, CEO, Rolls Royce
      Robert Rubin, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup Inc
      Lee Scott, President and CEO, Wal-Mart
      Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group
      Meg Whitman, President and CEO, eBay
      James Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for Disengagement and Former President of the World Bank

    Yep, that's right. In order to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and encourage opportunity among the lower classes, Brown is freighting in a convicted monopolist and a horde of bankers and fat-cats some of which are heads of corporations that have been criticised for predatory and/or unfair practises. Hmmmm.. Can't wait 'til the advice starts flowing. "Well everyone, what's the best thing to encourage competition in business"? Patents for everything and tax cuts for the exceptionally rich? Sure thing, no problem now that I can push it through Parliament without a proper debate. Seat in the House of Lords? Two million to you guv but make it untraceable, know what I mean?

    Sick country man, a really sick country.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  3. Re:The Parliament Act. by MartinB · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You see, the thing is, the Lords (at the moment) have a birth right to be there. They can say whatever they want without fear of parliamentary whips putting pressure on them to to stop conflicting with the current party's views, without fear of being kicked out, and without fear of losing their next election. That's why they're a good thing, because they have the chance to oppose laws even when the majority of parliament is for them.

    *blink* What the.... fuck

    *stares at user24 like the museum piece he/she apparently is*

    If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one.


    Arguably so, but at the moment, only a small proportion of the Lords are hereditaries (parent is forgetting the Lords reform over the last few parliaments). The rest are appointed, and not a few after having given large sums of cash to the Labour Party - but that's another discussion.

    The balance of power, however, is held by approx 160 independent Lords - no party alignment. And by and large, they do a very good job, and refuse to be treated as lobby fodder by the Government with its powers of appointment to powerful ministries.

    It's some comment on the current state of affairs that an unelected body with a proportion there by heriditary right is doing a better, more transparent, more thoughtful job than the elected one...
    --

    The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's