Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Amendments to the Abolition of Parliament Bill Raise Concerns

Shout Out Liverpool has some worrying analysis of three amendments tabled by the Government ot the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill. Is he right to be worried? Anyone care to shed more light on this?


Benedict White said...

Broadly speaking this act gives the executive the power to amend any legislation it feels like at any time for what ever reason without a vote in parliament.

It is if you will a bill of rights in reverse.

Should we be worried?

No not at all.

We should be shit scared.

Scary Biscuits said...

Good comment, benedict. Blair is Charles I, the dictator who started the Civil War. He's even a Catholic too.

Anonymous said...

The rule of law has all but disappeared (for ordinary people) in the last ten years, what with the appointment of judges who will do the state's bidding and the introduction of the CPR in the civil courts. The genius of this administration has been to introduce state socialism whilst pretending to do something else.

What is inexplicable to me is that virtually nobody in the press or the opposition has said much about it. Blair has acted as the unprincipled figurehead of this government, taking all the flak, but really he's been the sideshow, distracting us while the true agenda has been carried out stealthily with little or no scrutiny. The programme is now gaining momentum and will not come to fruition until after most people realise the noose has become too tight to remove.

And the sadness is that I'm convinced it's what most people want. The rule of law is only important for free men, it terrifies slaves that's why they don't raise a whimper when it goes.

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment dodonline, as I've long thought that Blair actually sees himself as Lord Protector, Cromwell after the Revision. The Abolition of Parliament Bill is very like the sort of thing Cromwell would have passed in his psuedo-religious-deeply-pragmatic "who will rid me of these foolish MPs" way.

I suppose the House could always become a living museum; children would go round marvelling at the animated exhibits; Cameron yelling at Blair, Blair yelling at Cameron - fantastic stuff! This is how we used to do it children before the Abolition and the EU. Imagine - people used to actually debate decisions in the open!

Anonymous said...

State Socialism (philip walling)? No! Spot on with the rest of your analysis, but the BlairBrownMandelCampbell is attempting to create a Hong-Kong or Singapore style capitalist dictatorship. New China is the model rather than old soviets. We will all drink Coca Cola and shop at Tesco or there will be trouble. Despite the name, this is another neo-con government. The aim is total removal of democracy because that has annoying issues like the raising of questions about corrupt profiteering. The WTO are in charge. The NHS will be sold off (Tory policy as well) and the Army will be used to quell trouble. (As in Thatcher's day). I see no reason for this blog to exist since all you true blues support these policies, why on earth does the end of parliamentary scrutiny concern you? Must be some sort of fauvist back-channeling, an eerie attempt to recapture some charming nostalgic picture of Disraeli and Gladstone fueding in the Commons over mighty imperial policies. Who needs that when American business reigns supreme?? We should all just get into line. The Daily Telegraph will be compulsory. Each packet of Nachos will represent one vote. Politics will be an illegal word. A nuclear power station in every village! Hurrah for the Tory-Blair-Bush-EU-China syndicalism!

Anonymous said...

Why don't you, anonymous, reveal yourself?
You're confused about conservatism, I'm afraid. I'm not afraid to say I'm a High Tory. I am not a conservative, although we get lumped together. I deplore rampant mercantilism (or capitalism as socialists call it) and 'globalisation'- whatever that means. The result it seems to me is to channel away to the benefit of other people all human effort and the value derived from the natural increase of things growing in the soil on which we live. That's what I mean when I say we are becoming slaves. We no longer get the benefit of our labour or the natural increase from our soil.
It's the moral, rather than the financial consequences that are so corrosive to us individually and to our communities generally. And this is happening to every country in the world it's no different for those who think they benefit from it - there are just different pernicious effects for them.

I agree that I may be wrong in describing what is happening as state socialism and I accept that it was started under a conservative government. But until some party, I don't care what it calls itself, says it will try to do something about this I don't feel I can vote for anybody because none of them has the people's interests at heart.