NationStates Jolt Archive

it is incredable how this bill has managed to escape the public eye. The things it enables ministers to do is absoloutly incredable, yet no ones noticed!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1723807,00.html

Britian will never become a tolitarian state. And if it did the United States would have something to say about it.

Britian will never become a tolitarian state. And if it did the United States would have something to say about it.
Provided it doesn't become one itself. ;)

IT is heading that way, and it will keep moving that way. It's unneccersary and ridiculous. But they'll force it through anyway. :(

Yeah the government in the UK sucks. Their move toward totalitarianism (and I'm not just talking about this bill) is completely unsubtle, yet no-one who can do anything does.

That needs to be stopped. Forever.

There are some safeguards though....it can't be used to create a punishable offence, it can't be used to "authorise any forcible entry", or to "compel the giving of evidence."

But for God sake...
"An order under section 1 may for either purpose specified in subsection (1) of
that section make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation."

Piss off. Piss right off.

Although, "An order under section 1 may bind the Crown." might bring up enough opposition...


The full text of the Bill is here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html)

:( It's stuff like this that makes me really wish there wasn't still 3 odd years left till the next general election. We seriously need a new governing party - I mean it's always the same isn't it, they all start out with good intentions, and usually follow up on them for a bit, but after a few years they start to drop off into... well, this. Two periods in power were more than enough for Blair methinks.

Even Conservative (under their new leadership at least) would be ebtter than this.

But hey, what do I care? Give it maybe five years, probably a bit more, and with any luck I'll have emigrated to New Zealand, or some other equally desirable country.

That needs to be stopped. Forever.

Yes! Come comrades! Let us march against... umm... things, and stuff. Yeah!:D

But hey, what do I care? Give it maybe five years, probably a bit more, and with any luck I'll have emigrated to New Zealand, or some other equally desirable country.

Come to NZ its great here, although granted our government is pretty retarded too.

Oh yay, the power to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. What a bunch of idiots. They don't seem to realise they won't be in power forever. God knows to what use someone will put that, one day. :mad:

Oh yay, the power to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. What a bunch of idiots. They don't seem to realise they won't be in power forever. God knows to what use someone will put that, one day. :mad:

Like putting themselves in power forever?

SNIP

the majority elected him because they wanted labour to lead Britain despite all the "totalitarian" measures that had already been discussed get over it or move to a dictatorship

also this is the guardian (and a very biased report at that)

You know, I think I remember hearing about something like this before somewhere...

Oh, yes.

The Enabling Law.

GodwinCounter++ !

the majority elected him because they wanted labour to lead Britain despite all the "totalitarian" measures that had already been discussed get over it or move to a dictatorship

also this is the guardian (and a very biased report at that)
Then go and read the bloody Bill.

Some interesting quotes from it:

1 Purpose

(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes—

(a) reforming legislation;

(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom
Law Commissions, with or without change

An order under section 1 may for either purpose specified in subsection (1) of that section make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation.

Provision under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or replace legislation in anyway that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace legislation so as to-

(a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees);

An order under section 1 may make such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation or other provision) as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

It also goes on to say that a Minister of the Crown may be given legislitave ability under certain conditions.


How can that possible be a good thing?

You know, I think I remember hearing about something like this before somewhere...

Oh, yes.

The Enabling Law.

GodwinCounter++ !

Since I had to look this up, I'll give the link: Enabling Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Law)

SNIP

too bad we have a Queen with power over parliament eh

And the good thing is if Blair wanted to create a totalitarian regime the Queen would be the first in line to lose power otherwise it makes the whole plan a bit fruitless don’t you think

:(

Even Conservative (under their new leadership at least) would be ebtter than this.



Its crazy talk like that that got Hitler in power.

Its crazy talk like that that got Hitler in power.

O yes, because Cameroonian conservatism and fascism make easy bedfellows!

Please. That's like saying Labour is a socialist party.

Me Thinks its time for another Peasants Revolt

Me Thinks its time for another Peasants Revolt

You do realise the first was remorselessly crushed?

too bad we have a Queen with power over parliament eh

Nope:

An order under section 1 may bind the Crown.

You do realise the first was remorselessly crushed?

now I rembered it was not very good suggestion now to think of it

Didnt we fight a Civil War because somebody though they where above the Law though seems to smack that Minister can be above the Law and change it will and nilly

Me Thinks its time for another Peasants Revolt

Bagsy being John Ball.


You do realise the first was remorselessly crushed?

Well we can learn from their mistakes then ;)

Well, theres only one thing for it...

Put me in power :D You can trust me...honest...

But fucking hell, how did this one slip?

I hope that this will not get through...caus this whole section is a right bastard...

Provision


(1) An order under section 1 may for either purpose specified in subsection (1) of that section make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation.


(2) Provision under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace
legislation so as to—


(a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees);


(b) modify the functions conferred on any person by legislation;


(c) transfer, or provide for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by legislation.

This is subject to sections 4 to 7.


(3) An order under section 1 may for the purpose specified in subsection (1)(b) of that section also make—


(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law;


(b) provision codifying rules of law.


(4) An order under section 1 may make such consequential, supplementary,


incidental or transitional provision (including provision amending, repealing


or replacing any legislation or other provision) as the Minister making it


considers appropriate.


(5) An order under section 1 may bind the Crown.

At least it can't be used for raising taxes:

Taxation

(1) Provision under section 2(1) may not impose or increase taxation.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to provision which merely restates legislation.

At least it can't be used for raising taxes:

Every cloud...

At least it can't be used for raising taxes:

Although if the Act was passed, there's nothing to stop a Minister amending it and removing that restriction. Or, indeed, any of the restrictions.

Herein we find the problem with a system that does not seperate the Executive from the legislative. I feel the need for a Lib - Con Alliance because at least they are both Libertarian parties and neither can win the next general election on its own. A dicison not to fight each other in seats where the Labour party might win as a result of their competing against each other.

Herein we find the problem with a system that does not seperate the Executive from the legislative. I feel the need for a Lib - Con Alliance because at least they are both Libertarian parties and neither can win the next general election on its own. A dicison not to fight each other in seats where the Labour party might win as a result of their competing against each other.

Interesting use of the term "Libertarian."

Herein we find the problem with a system that does not seperate the Executive from the legislative. I feel the need for a Lib - Con Alliance because at least they are both Libertarian parties and neither can win the next general election on its own. A dicison not to fight each other in seats where the Labour party might win as a result of their competing against each other.
There is no problem a system that does not fully seperate the executive from the legislature.

The way the UK has it now is pretty much perfect in my view, it keeps the executive answerable to Parliament, and therefore to the 'people' (in theory).

The problem is that this would wipe out the careful balance that the UK's system of government currently maintains.

Not really, not as strict an interpritation as some might take, I'll grant you that, but when they (Tories) tried to recuit me that was their main line and dispite the fact that I didn't join they made their case quite well.

Conservative are very pro civil liberties (I suspect because their sexual discretions are hidden better that way). The Conservatives dislike emensely the idea of a state that pays too much attention to our personal lives. That, I would consider, is more Libertarian than the Labour autocracy.

There is no problem a system that does not fully seperate the executive from the legislature.

The way the UK has it now is pretty much perfect in my view, it keeps the executive answerable to Parliament, and therefore to the 'people' (in theory).

The problem is that this would wipe out the careful balance that the UK's system of government currently maintains.

No it is not, the Westminster system, when applied outside Britain has lead to semi ligitmate dictatorships throughout the old british Empire - Kenya under Arap Moi - and possibly now under Kibaki, Zimbabwe under both Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe, South Africa in the 1940 under Vorster, Pakistan (on several occasions), Uganda under Obote (sp?). The problem is that becaus ethe Legislative and Executive are so closely what the Government decides (by way of having a majority) the Legislative agrees to. Without a powerful senior house or a seperate (from government) Lower house there is no way of preventing a slow shift toward autocracy. The Westminster system allows laws to be created much faster and with fewer checks and balances than an American or French Republic system.

No it is not, the Westminster system, when applied outside Britain has lead to semi ligitmate dictatorships throughout the old british Empire - Kenya under Arap Moi - and possibly now under Kibaki, Zimbabwe under both Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe, South Africa in the 1940 under Vorster, Pakistan (on several occasions), Uganda under Obote (sp?).

Kenya - Presidential executive, unicameral legislature.
Zimbabwe - Presidential executive
South Africa - vaguely Westminster-ish system (President is head of Government, but comes from legislature)
Pakistan - vaguely Westminster-ish system
Uganda - Presidential executive

The problem is that becaus ethe Legislative and Executive are so closely what the Government decides (by way of having a majority) the Legislative agrees to.
Something easily remedied by use of RP, which takes away the prospect of large majorities.

Without a powerful senior house or a seperate (from government) Lower house there is no way of preventing a slow shift toward autocracy.
Bullshit.

But I would advocate the strengthening of the HoL (provided it consisted only of life Peers)

The Westminster system allows laws to be created much faster and with fewer checks and balances than an American or French Republic system.
Maybe quicker, but not necessarily with fewer checks and balances.

Firstly:
Kenya - Presidential executive, unicameral legislature. as below...
Zimbabwe - Presidential executive only after 1987, after Mugabe joined the office of the Prime Minister (his) with the office of the non-executive Presidency (Cannan Banana's) though a vote in the houses of Parliament - the same way the Senate (Zim's House of Lords in effect) was disolved
South Africa - vaguely Westminster-ish system (President is head of Government, but comes from legislature) only after 1945/8 did the President have executive powers, before that it had a full Westminster style system and it is that system that lead to the down fall of the Union Party and the rise of the Nationalist party who installed apathied
Pakistan - vaguely Westminster-ish systemonly after the General Musharaf's Coup did the President gain executive powers, before that it was a figure head post, the Prime inister held most executive powers
Uganda - Presidential executive only after Obote took power

Something easily remedied by use of RP, which takes away the prospect of large majorities. not all, not easily and not without allowing crack pot parties a dangerous voice, despite the fact I agree with PR in general for a weaker lower house

But I would advocate the strengthening of the HoL (provided it consisted only of life Peers) what if it had longer term, say ten year, fully elected seats?

Maybe quicker, but not necessarily with fewer checks and balances. yea, and how do so many bad laws get through

not all, not easily and not without allowing crack pot parties a dangerous voice, despite the fact I agree with PR in general for a weaker lower house
They deserve a voice just as much as the more "mainstream" parties.

PR would weaken the ability of the government to dominate Parliament.

what if it had longer term, say ten year, fully elected seats?
Wouldn't be so keen on that, for a start it would be the end of crossbenchers.

yea, and how do so many bad laws get through
Depends what you mean by "bad law".

Respnse
They deserve a voice just as much as the more "mainstream" parties. depends on how far we are prepared to accept freedom of speech and how dangerous the views

PR would weaken the ability of the government to dominate Parliament.Generally I agre with PR for formulating laws, but not for ratifying or enforcing them


Wouldn't be so keen on that, for a start it would be the end of crossbenchers.Cross benchers may have to be sacrificed for real progressive change, the plus side would be that Constituency elected members can cross with less fear of party retribution at the next election. Even now MP can cross the floor if they feel betrayed by their party, though the only example I can think of off hand is Churchill.

Depends what you mean by "bad law". I mean laws and policies that are illiberal, poorly thought out, rash or reactionary, serving only the base constitiency of the ruleing party or sometimes, simply ill-timed or not fully funded

too bad we have a Queen with power over parliament eh

What power? She no longer even has the power to refuse to sign a bill; legislation is no longer presented to her, in fact, but simply promulgated. The Queen has no power at all.

Britain, even moreso than many of the other Westminster countries, is an elected dictatorship. There is no one who can gainsay the House of Commons, save in certain circumstances, the courts; and since there is no constitution to interpret, their effect is very limited.

This bill will simply ensure the destruction of the democratic veneer Britain has developed. All that is required is one unscrupulous political leader, and British democracy ceases to be.

Yes! Come comrades! Let us march against... umm... things, and stuff. Yeah!:D
Against the system. Shut down the system!!!

Provided it doesn't become one itself. ;)

Wait...you mean it isn't?:eek:

This bill will simply ensure the destruction of the democratic veneer Britain has developed. All that is required is one unscrupulous political leader, and British democracy ceases to be.
it's Mr Tony 'I pray to god for answers, whoc ares about reason?' Blair where talking about. You want a unscruplious leader, you got one.

Strange that both sides of the political spectrrum have joined on this one, from rightys to leftys such as myself.

depends on how far we are prepared to accept freedom of speech and how dangerous the views
I will tolerate all free speech right up to the point where it is intended to incite violence.

Generally I agre with PR for formulating laws, but not for ratifying or enforcing them
Why not?

Cross benchers may have to be sacrificed for real progressive change, the plus side would be that Constituency elected members can cross with less fear of party retribution at the next election. Even now MP can cross the floor if they feel betrayed by their party, though the only example I can think of off hand is Churchill.
Cross benchers are important to having an upper house that is seperate from the lower house.

I mean laws and policies that are illiberal, poorly thought out, rash or reactionary, serving only the base constitiency of the ruleing party or sometimes, simply ill-timed or not fully funded
Illiberal? Such as?
Surely the job of government is to be incompetent? I thought everybody knew that by now :confused:

And can you please reply using quotes instead of posting inside a quote box? The way you do it means I have to cope and paste all your answers and stuff.

Against the system. Shut down the system!!!
Sure thing. Let us know when you'd like a hand setting up a new one; we've got our top analysts on standby.

No it is not, the Westminster system, when applied outside Britain has lead to semi ligitmate dictatorships throughout the old british Empire - Kenya under Arap Moi - and possibly now under Kibaki, Zimbabwe under both Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe, South Africa in the 1940 under Vorster, Pakistan (on several occasions), Uganda under Obote (sp?). The problem is that becaus ethe Legislative and Executive are so closely what the Government decides (by way of having a majority) the Legislative agrees to. Without a powerful senior house or a seperate (from government) Lower house there is no way of preventing a slow shift toward autocracy. The Westminster system allows laws to be created much faster and with fewer checks and balances than an American or French Republic system.

Iran, China, North Korea are all presidential, as is well as many other dictatorships.

India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and oh, every European country bar France and the Ukraine all use the parliamentary system.

It's not as if presidentialism in the USA is perfect, either. Our British system isn't perfect, and isn't going to get better under Blair/Cameron, but I'm sure any kind of repressive legislation can be passed through Congress just as much as Blair can get it through parliament.

Maybe if Labour are kicked out, and Conservatives are too backward thinking (or whatever reason people dont vote for them) the Lib Dems might win. Can you imagine the celebration afterwards? It would go on for a term.

Lets face it, right now, they look like a party that is better than the rest, after all, the majority vote for the best of the bad ones. Monster Raving Loony Party is never going to catch on beyond 13 year olds who think they are cool, and the BNP, well, "nuff sed".

Whats the future for British politics? Is there a future? Are we all going to sink? Will Tony Blairs fish ever drown? These are questions we should also be asking! Makes our country seem like a soap opera doesnt it?

Maybe if Labour are kicked out, and Conservatives are too backward thinking (or whatever reason people dont vote for them) the Lib Dems might win. Can you imagine the celebration afterwards? It would go on for a term.

Lets face it, right now, they look like a party that is better than the rest, after all, the majority vote for the best of the bad ones. Monster Raving Loony Party is never going to catch on beyond 13 year olds who think they are cool, and the BNP, well, "nuff sed".

Whats the future for British politics? Is there a future? Are we all going to sink? Will Tony Blairs fish ever drown? These are questions we should also be asking! Makes our country seem like a soap opera doesnt it?
My hope is real socalist party will spring up, like labour did when it first arrive in 1905, and represent the real people, not the middle class that Blair and Cameron try to coerce. I mean we all know Caroan Ann Duffy was prevented being poet lauret because she's lesbien and her selection might offend 'middle england'.

Maybe if Labour are kicked out, and Conservatives are too backward thinking (or whatever reason people dont vote for them) the Lib Dems might win. Can you imagine the celebration afterwards? It would go on for a term.

The Lib Dems are the only chance of getting anything /new/ out of our government. Labour and Conservative are far too set in the Opposition mindset - their entire party line is 'We're against what the other guys are doing' (okay, so I simplify... oversimplify... make wild exaggerations... whatever). The Lib Dems /can't/ do that, because they'll just be seen as the same as whatever party is currently in opposition. So they have to come up with something new. /If/ they ever get back into parliament (all right, get in, as the Lib Dems aren't the Liberals who were in charge once a time upon), we'll actually have a three-party system like we did for... oh, a whole decade back in the day. That /will/ be interesting.

-- all right, I admit it - I support them because I'm a big fan of David Lloyd-George (who is dead, and was Liberal, not Lib Dem. Shh). Happy?

Although if the Act was passed, there's nothing to stop a Minister amending it and removing that restriction. Or, indeed, any of the restrictions.

Yeah true... that slipped past me again... :(

The Lib Dems are the only chance of getting anything /new/ out of our government. Labour and Conservative are far too set in the Opposition mindset - their entire party line is 'We're against what the other guys are doing' (okay, so I simplify... oversimplify... make wild exaggerations... whatever). The Lib Dems /can't/ do that, because they'll just be seen as the same as whatever party is currently in opposition. So they have to come up with something new. /If/ they ever get back into parliament (all right, get in, as the Lib Dems aren't the Liberals who were in charge once a time upon), we'll actually have a three-party system like we did for... oh, a whole decade back in the day. That /will/ be interesting.

-- all right, I admit it - I support them because I'm a big fan of David Lloyd-George (who is dead, and was Liberal, not Lib Dem. Shh). Happy?
But the lib dems are getting rid of there uneqness, the thing that gives them votes, to ebcome like the Tories and Labout-or modernise as Ming calls it