Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Parliament to be Made Redundant?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the politics-the-same-the-world-over dept.

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.

49 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. The Parliament Act. by Blapto · · Score: 4, Informative

    This wasn't snuck in, it's been around for quite some time now. It actually serves a valid purpose as well. Basically, the part that this article refers to allows a government to bypass the House of Lords (an unelected body) after a certain number of tries in a certain time period when trying to pass a bill.
    Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

    1. Re:The Parliament Act. by Blapto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably poor form to reply to my own post, but in reference to the Parliament Act, it's worth having a look at the Salisbury Convention to see why it isn't as powerful as it sounds.

    2. Re:The Parliament Act. by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is because the Lords have been traditional conservatives, in regards to the administration of government in Britain. That is, they have been a barrier to the kind of radical moves by "New Labour" that characterize the revolutionary and unrepresentative executives of Bush in the US, Howard in Australia and Harper in Canada.

      They wish to preserve the legacy of representation and rule of law that are initiated with the Magna Carta, and succeeding 800 years of parliamentary rule. In fact, many of the Lords see this as a part of their personal heritage. It is a definition of "conservative" that has been sadly neglected in much of the English-speaking world over the last half-century. As an old Whig of the Fox/Hobhouse school, I applaud the credibility and veracity of Ancien Regieme Tories in this principled position.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    3. Re:The Parliament Act. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

      The public kicks up a fuss about LOTS of things, but they never get listened to. For example: Iraq, ID cards, school reforms...

      The ID cards bill has been rejected by the Lords again and again, because frankly they're sane. But my understanding is this act could well be used to force it through, to the detriment of everyone.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    4. Re:The Parliament Act. by user24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. Apart from the Queen (who needless to say only perform a cursory duty), they are the only impartial group in the government. I agree that they are definately more conservative, and generally represent only the upper class white citizens (as seen in their rejection of the anti-hunting legislation), but that's better than their not being there at all. imho. ianal.

    5. Re:The Parliament Act. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, technically, it is the Queen that rules Britain...the government that has been granted it's position continues to exist only because it promotes order within her realm and she is thus satisfied with it's function of keeping the country from falling into utter chaos. Technically. If that government were to grossly step out of line it is entirely within her authority to remove it, or at least bring it back in line.

      Ultimately though, it comes down to the People. If they won't support the Queen in her actions then very quickly you'd either find her removed (given past examples in Britain, this would likely involve plenty of bloodshed and one dead monarch) or a slap on the wrist given and an illusion of a limitation of the Monarchy's powers (which would merely be the creation of a new government with expanded authority, that again merely exists because it keeps the Monarchy satisfied the nation is running properly...technically).

    6. Re:The Parliament Act. by (negative+video) · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I realise it's a legacy of centuries past, and I realise that it's 'historically important', but create a 'house of lords' museum and get yourselves a proper senate for the love of democracy.
      Democracy consists of you and your neighbors deciding most of what government does to you. An elected senate dictating tiny details of everyday life to people hundreds of miles away is not democratic. Every matter being a national winner-takes-all battle is not democratic.
    7. Re:The Parliament Act. by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Impartial? Nonsense. They're only accountable to their own interests.

      Well, yes, of course. However, as they don't have to worry about being re-elected, they can say what they think and vote for what they really think is in the nation's best interest instead of pandering to lobbyists and campaign contributors. In that sense, at least, they're more likely to be impartial than an elected official.

      It's the same idea as the Romans used in having members of their Senate (Their "conscript fathers" as they were sometimes called.) serve for life. By taking away the need to curry favor for re-election, they were expected to be able to put themselves above the special interest groups and work only for the good of the state. To some extent, it worked, because the senators took their responsibilities seriously.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:The Parliament Act. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Having an elected upper house somewhat defeats the point of having one at all. There is a huge benefit to having an unelected one. They can not enact bills without the agreement of the lower house (which is elected), so they are unable to simply further their own interests. Conversely, they provide a check on the tyranny of the majority that representative democracy so often leads to by not being subject to the whims of the majority.

      You may have seen in recent years how easy it is to cower the electorate with the thread of 'terrorists.' The majority is willing to give up personal freedoms in order for the government to protect them from a spectre. If the majority feels this way, and the upper house is elected by any means then it becomes easy to pass such laws.

      Oh, and don't say that a codified constitution would protect the people from such things. As we can see in the USA, the constitution must be interpreted by individuals, and these individuals are susceptible to the influences of their time.

      I have had the opportunity to observe the debate in both houses during my time in London, and met with members of both houses. At the end of the experience, I am usually left wondering why we put up with the house of commons. Individually, I know a few members who are rational and reasonable individuals, but when you put them together you get a room full of idiots. I believe Gilbert and Sullivan said it best when they said each MP 'has got to leave his brain outside.'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:The Parliament Act. by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative
      No. England is the opposite of a theocracy, which happens to look identical to one if you aren't paying attention.

      In a theocracy, the church runs the government. In England, the government runs the church. As these both have the same entity running both the church and the government, it is easy to confuse them.

      With England, however, the government runs the church because the church that used to claim authority (The Catholic Church) was asserting too much authority, so they got rid of it. And then, because it was expected at the time, they made their own church, which they have then continued to basically ignore.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:The Parliament Act. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Okay, I know the Brits don't have an official constitution and so the rules on this may not be carved in stone, but that still seems kind of unlikely

      Actually, we do have a written constitution. What we don't have is a codified constitution (our constitution is drawn from many sources). The grandparent poster is half right. The prime minister does have to be an MP, however they do not have to be a member of the House of Commons. The procedure for selecting a PM is roughly as follows:

      1. The Queen selects someone and invites them to form a government.
      2. This person must gain the support of half of the house of commons.
      3. If so, they become prime minister. If not, then the Queen goes back to step 1.

      Since the creation of Lords is one of the Monarch's Prerogative Powers, it is quite possible for her to select someone completely random, create them a peer, and then ask them to form a government. For the last couple of centuries or so it has been traditional for the monarch to invite the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government, since they are usually guaranteed support of the majority of the house.

      If, at any point, the PM ceases to have the support of half of the house then a vote of no confidence can be passed. If this happens, a general election must be called and a new government elected. This can happen, for example, if they have a narrow majority and one of their members resigns or dies. At this point a by-election will be called, and their seat contested again. If someone from the opposition takes it then the government can lose its majority.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:The Parliament Act. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh yes, because OUR system works so well, with those Senators getting down on their knees and puckering up to any large corporation with a few million bucks every six years. (Granted, they don't seem to be as blindly bad as some members of the House, but that's a pretty low bar these days.)

      The UK system of government undoubtedly has its share of problems, but the House of Lords isn't it.

      Except for the fact that it's not a sort of thing that you can just create (it's more something that you can only have, if it's been in existence since before the rest of the government formed) I'd say that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to do something like that here, in my more exasperated moments. In theory, it's a pretty good idea -- a bunch of people who aren't subject to the whims of fat-walleted corporate/PAC pimps and who have no other function in the government aside from taking the longest possible view. (Arguably this is the function of the USSC here, I suppose.)

      The purpose that our Senate was originally supposed to serve, namely to be a brake on the other half of the Legislature, it seems to regularly fail to do; each party's House and Senate contingents seem to be in lock-step on all but the smallest details (you generally have to get down to the wording of particular bills to find differences between Senate and House versions, the intent is rarely very different on major issues). So I'm not sure that I would be dismissing the concept of a House of Lords so quickly. If I were a UK citizen (subject?) I'd be awfully reticent to throw away anything that might act as a brake on the rest of government, however anachronistic it might seem. If they were trying to drag the entire country back to the 17th century I might feel less cautious, but it doesn't seem like there's any evidence of that.

      However bad you think your government is now, with enough meddling it could always get spectacularly worse in a hurry.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:The Parliament Act. by MartinB · · Score: 5, Informative
      This wasn't snuck in, it's been around for quite some time now. It actually serves a valid purpose as well. Basically, the part that this article refers to allows a government to bypass the House of Lords (an unelected body) after a certain number of tries in a certain time period when trying to pass a bill.

      To separate out the two issues you're conflating:

      The Parliament Act is there to prevent the unelected Lords from blocking legislation which the elected Commons has a mandate to implement. By convention this means the content of the goverment's election manifesto.

      Now the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill means that not only will the Lords not be able to oppose Government policy (in the manifesto or not), this will be extended to the Commons.

      Or, to put it in constitutional speak: the Executive usurps the power of the Legislature, and neuters the capacity of the Judiciary.

      Yes, our freedom-loving government is plainly tired of all that mucking around attending Parliament, and persuading MPs to support its bright ideas. In future (so goes the vision), our beloved, trusted ministers will be able to amend, replace and repeal legislation by fiat. The only restrictions are that ministers can't impose new taxes (but can introduce new fees. Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to), or introduce prison sentences longer than 2 years.

      So could HMG decide to make ID Cards entirely compulsory? Could they require all public services to be disposed of to PFI? Could they abolish the Scottish Parliament? Yes, Yes and Yes (they couldn't impose laws in devolved matters, but they could abolish the whole thing).

      And the checks and balances on ministerial absolutism? Erm... none. The minister merely has to consider a vaguely written checklist and be personally satisfied that's it's a Good Idea overall. Because ministers are of course entirely impartial judges of their own proposals. It's already being called The Abolition of Parliament Act as Parliament simply won't be able to scrutinise legislation in advance or block it. But it's also an Abolition of The Judiciary Act as the courts can't challenge Ministerial Orders after the fact on the basis of being disproportionate or removing freedoms and protections from the citizenry as long as the Minister can show that he/she has thought long and hard about it. Presumably the fact that Ministers are genetically incapable of thinking like this won't help...

      Separation of Powers? We've Heard of It

      Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.

      Which, as the Executive can impose what the hell it likes without the checks and balances of an adversarial Parliament, can be entirely ignored except for the 3 months before an election.

      --

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

    13. 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

    14. Re:The Parliament Act. by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Okay let me see if I got this straight here. You have a bunch of unelected rich kids who decide what becomes law or not in your country.
      Not exactly. The House of Lords cannot make new primary legislation, it can only amend legislation brought up by the (elected) House of Commons. Even then, the House of Commons can effectively overrule the amendments.
      And thats okay with you. To quote Michael Collins, how did you people ever get an empire? People with very little in common with the common man (and I know a couple of these space cadets personally, so trust me on this) who can't be sacked, whose vested interests are, well, incredibly vested, who leant a new respectability to the concept of inbreeding, these are the yahoos you want with a veto over your laws. Their qualifications? Right surname. Now, I'm not saying this proves English people like to take it up the arse or anything, but it does lend a significant mass to the theorem, taking us one step closer to critical.
      Most of that is no longer true. The House of Lords is now largely an appointed chamber (appointed by the government and opposition of the day). Bizarrely, even in the recent past when it was packed with hereditary peers, it generally served to correct the more extreme ideas of the government of the day. Even now it seems to be the only thing standing in the way of our sorry government turning this country into a police state.
      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  2. Pesky bureaucracy by Beuno · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, let's get rid of that pesky bureaucracy.
    And while you're at it, why waste time voting?
    Let's get rid of that time-consuming thing...

  3. In COBN3T Britain by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    In SOVIET BRITAIN, Britannia waives the rules!

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:In COBN3T Britain by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > In SOVIET BRITAIN, Britannia waives the rules!

      You forgot the even-more-ironic second line to the chorus.

      In Sov'yet Britain, Britannia waives the rules! Britons, ever ever shall be slaves to fools.

  4. Errr... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hate to be the grammar nazi, but the submitter misspelled "US" and "Congress"...

    1. Re:Errr... by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 5, Funny

      I must say I love slashdot, where an article about UK politics displays with a US flag on top.

  5. Remember, remember... by babbling · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want everyone to remember that we stand on the edge of oblivion! I want everyone to remember why they need us!

  6. Check out saveparliament.org.uk too by caluml · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's also a website that explains in slightly less dry terms than the official parliament website some of the things it would allow MPs to do. It appears to be unavailable at the moment, but check it out when it's back up.
    From memory, it's basically: add or change any laws they feel like, as long as they don't raise taxes, or have jail sentances over 2 years.
    And as for why the opposition parties and UK media aren't mentioning it, I have no idea.

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  7. To those who don't know what is redundancy... by fijal · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy

    1. Re:To those who don't know what is redundancy... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

      To those who don't know what is redundancy...

      You must be new here :)

  8. "It's gonna get blown up anyway" by flyingace · · Score: 5, Funny

    Didn't you guys see "V for Vendetta" over the weekend ?

  9. RTFA - this is not about the parliament act by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, but the parliament act isn't what is in question.

    What is in question is this new proposed act, that allows any cabinet member to alter any piece of legislation by conducting a single vote with the minimum of debate or discussion. The parliament act is usually only used after ages of battling, so at least we are certain that MPs have looked at and understood what is being passed. With this new act, it would be very easy to sandwich scary ideas into an innoculous looking package, and sneak that through the vote. The worst case scenario is that one such scary bill would be a motion to alter this bill itself - and remove parliament from the process altogether.

    Even if we trust the government not to abuse it, this is still a terrifyingly huge loophole. And in fact, the bill is currently *very* close to being passed. It only has a 1-hour final hearing in the commons, and then it's onto the Lords. And if the Lords don't cooperate, a truly malicious government can use the Parliament act to force it through....

    1. Re:RTFA - this is not about the parliament act by illtud · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is in question is this new proposed act, that allows any cabinet member to alter any piece of legislation by conducting a single vote with the minimum of debate or discussion.

      *No*, that's the *status quo* (almost). The new Act will allow a cabinet member to alter any piece of legistlation *without recourse to parliament*. Ie, without a vote! Read it. Listen to the screams of those who have been attending the backwater committee stages that have been cooking this up. This is an unprecedented move to bypass parliament altogether to punish it for standing in the way of the government's 'reforms', hidden under the cloak of 'deregulation'. Only 'controversial' changes would have to be voted on in parliament, with the ministers themselves deciding what is 'controversial'! If this passes, Jim Murphy's name may well go down in history as the man who killed democracy in the UK.

      If you think this sounds like hyperbole, just check it out yourself.

  10. Bloody MC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's that damn Magna Carta, you know.

    Once you take the power from the one true Sovereign, who has been selected by God to know what is right for this country, all of this havoc follows in due course.

    I say: absolve the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and revert all power to HRH Elizabeth Regina.

    We'll then all get along splendidly. (Or at least untill Charles takes the thrown.)

  11. 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!
  12. How Emperor Blair will rule without bureaucracy... by Too+many+errors,+bai · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation."

  13. Hm. by mattpointblank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If GCSE History serves me correctly, didn't Hitler [1] do something like this? Some bill that granted him "emergency powers" over the Reichstag that meant he could pass laws on his own? One step closer to dictatorship we step..

    [1]Note that I'm not equating Tony Blair to Hitler or Labour to the Nazis or anything, just an interesting co-incidence..

    1. Re:Hm. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny you should mention this. They were talking on the radio about how we shouldn't teach about Hitler in schools anymore (UK) because it leads to tensions between us and Germany.

      Not that I'm so paranoid or anything to think that they don't want us to draw parallels here..

  14. More accurate and equally applicable by HunterZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Britain, the rules waive Britannia!

    --
    Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
  15. Re:Maybe In Canada Too by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because the Governor-General is no more a political office than the Crown is. The appointment is made with the "advice" of your Parliament anyway, which basically means the Crown appoints whomever its told to appoint. It's as democratic as your Prime Minister.

    Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government. In the US it would be refreshing to be able to have the Head of State present to solemnize some event, without having to invite the current idiot in the White House who will use the occasion to push whatever's presently on his political agenda.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  16. Re:Constitution? by paulkman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The "constitution" of the UK is basically just that, centuries of precedent. Some stuff is written down (like the Magna Carta), but for the most part, it's all tradition. In this sense, parliament itself has placed restrictions on itself by acting the way it has for several centuries.

  17. Re:Maybe In Canada Too by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Republicanism is a divisive issue in Canada, splitting people into two opposing sides: those who just don't care, and those who don't really give a damn.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  18. Why is this dangerous? by jafac · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because, by allowing the charade of Congress/Parliment to continue, we still have the illusion of Republican systems of government, when in fact, we have dictatorships.

    When my kid is in school learning about how great the US is, and how we're great because we're free, will they teach him that we're not actually free any longer because of a tacit approval of abdication of our rights? No. Because we have a "congress".

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  19. I wrote to my MP this morning by jregel · · Score: 3, Informative

    I heard about this over the weekend and wrote to my MP this morning. Use FaxYourMP to get your message through. Text below:

    Dear David Drew,

    I am hoping you can reassure me concerning the proposed Legislative and
    Regulatory Reform (LRR) Bill which I saw reference to on TV over the
    weekend and was featured on Radio 4 this week.

    My understanding is that the Bill will enable Ministers to reform
    legislation without referring directly to Parliament and that MPs and
    Peers will not have the ability to modify problematic proposals in the
    way they do at present.

    Parliamentary scrutiny is at the heart of the democratic process and
    any action that weakens the powers of influence of MPs is of great
    concern to me.

    Please can you help clarify what the Bill will allow and whether you
    will be supporting or opposing it.

    Yours sincerely...

  20. Already in Canada by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Powers That Be in Canada, both Federal and Provincial, can already pass a law without running it by Parliament. It's called an Order in Council. Theoretically an OIC is used for little things like political appointments, but it can be used for big things too.

    If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Already in Canada by MagnaDoodle666 · · Score: 3, Informative
      If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.


      The Notwithstanding Clause is used to exempt a law from being examined under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties. This Charter is part of our Constitution and guarantees personal rights such as the right to free speech. Meaning it can allow Parliament to vote a law which is unconstitutional.

      In the US, it would be the same as if congress could be allowed to vote a law which goes against the Constitution, and the judges couldn't do anything about it. To keep things fair, this provision has to be reexamined by Parliament every 5 years.

      So this has nothing to do with giving the executive power (prime minister and ministers) the power to change laws without consulting Parliament. The law still has to be voted by Parliament. So this has no relation whatsoever with the bill proposed in the UK and couldn't be used to circumvent Parliament.
  21. Re:Constitution? by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Informative

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_U nited_Kingdom

    --
    The Rise and Fall of Online Community
  22. Re:American Dictator by Captain_Biggles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You act like this president, Supreme Court and Congress are like the ones that came before them: that they respect government. They don't.

    Ah yes, the good old days of respect for government. Like when FDR decided that if the Supreme Court rejected his policies, he'd just make it bigger (using his own appointments) until the required number of justices could reach an agreement. Or when pretty much every administration since the creation of the FBI has used that agency to spy on political enemies. Or endless porkbarrel projects created amidst bribery and backroom dealings.

    That respect for government? Or did you mean some other time when politicians haven't been hopelessly corrupt?

    Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush. But putting the "other guy" in office has never solved these problems. Something much more drastic is required at this point.

  23. Article 48? by Firehed · · Score: 3, Informative

    Doesn't this seem eerily similar to Article 48 and the Enabling Act, which is (in not so many words) what Hitler used to create the Holocaust?

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  24. 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.
  25. There's no money in the House of Lords these days by lebski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now Blair can't sell peerages to it; he's going to close it. Well I guess that will sort out the corruption but I don't think that's what we had in mind.

  26. There is no noble mob by FhnuZoag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rubbish.

    History has shown that whenever a rag tag army gets together during a militaristic dictatorship, it would be *behind* the dictator, and in fact often culpable of the worst of his crimes. When the at least disciplined professional troops or policemen would decline to be involved in an atrocity, a crazed volunteer bunch would be willing to lend their imaginative efforts.

    The first thing such governments do is to turn people against each other. Letting people have guns is meaningless, because the gun owners are the ones who form the militias, and who gets rewarded by the government with the powers to keep the rest of the population in check. Armed mobs of civilians swept the Nazis into power, and then they organised clubs to train the youth in military tactics. Armed and anarchic mobs of students conducted the cultural revolution. Ordinary people, equipped with weapons the state handed out, conducted the Rawandan massacre. When was the last time there was a totalitarian state where the people would rebel - if only they had the guns to do so?

    Until people stop being idiots who will buy into any and all propaganda they find, guns in the hands of the majority are just as likely to be tools of oppression as they are liberation.

  27. Executive Orders... by shaneh0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may have been covered in a comment already, but I didn't see it.

    People are discussing the mechanisms in the UK and Canada to pass a law w/o running it thru parliment, and my understanding of these mechanisms is that they work much like "Executive Orders" do in the US.

    The president can sign an executive order and it becomes the law of the land. It can be circumvented by Congress and the Supreme Court, but not easily.

  28. aka Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act by maubp · · Score: 3, Informative
    Note that I'm not equating Tony Blair to Hitler or Labour to the Nazis or anything, just an interesting co-incidence..

    I am: I've just written to my local MP (who happens to be a conservative):
    Dear ...,

    The "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill" recently came to my attention, thanks to a piece on The Guardian's website.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/ cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html

    Having looked at the proposed text of the bill, it bears chilling comparison to Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act, which allowed him and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Germany's parliament.

    Please can you help clarify what the Bill will allow, as by my reading it is disturbingly broad with very few limitation, and whether you will be supporting or opposing it.

    Yours sincerely, ...


    Fellow Brits - write to your MPs www.writetothem.com
  29. US Senate as an unelected body by JimBobJoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    Actually, the whole house of review concept was always meant to be a non-elected body.

    One of the major checks and balances built into the US constitution was that the Senate was unelected. They founders thought it would be a huge error to have both houses elected--the point of the Senate was an unelected body that was separated from politics. (Which is why certain types of decisions pass through the Senate--such as the approval of judge appointments.)

    All that became horribly messed up by the direct election of Senators. Since they are now directly elected, but still have powers that were granted to them based on the idea that they weren't directly elected, they've completely disbalanced the system. (The only thing that makes the Senate work as a house of review is the fact that the constituency borders, since they're states, cannot be artificially gerrymandered. It'd be cool if they were elected in a different system, a change I'm open to.)