Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

[Invictus_88]

Am I the only person scared by this?

The government awarding themselves the ability to change any law with punishment less than two years. That's a lot of law, and not a lot of debate. That's centralisation of power gone mad.

It worries me that the government is so convinced of our political apathy that it is trying something of such audacity. It worries me more that nobody seems to care about it.

So, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, any opinions?  

[Invictus_88]

(The Bill itself.)

(BBC news page.)

(The Times)

(ePolitix article.)

NB: The bloody coding works in the preview! Copy+paste if it's still cocking up.  

[A Lost Iguana]

Er. Doesn't the govn't have to have that passed through Parliament? Surely it'll fail at either Lords of if Commons gets a a free vote.  

[Invictus_88]

Oh yes, I'm relying on it failing. It almost certainly will, the difficulty as ever will be in figting to have it sufficiently amended.

I have very little faith in the potential for redrafting, they'll put amendments on it but it's unlikely that Labour will give enough ground. Especially with the Bill being given so little attention.

Mostly, it scares me that the government even dared to put this bill forward. The way it is written, every and any law in the country could be changed within a few months.  

[Captain Churchill]

A Lost Iguana

Er. Doesn't the govn't have to have that passed through Parliament? Surely it'll fail at either Lords of if Commons gets a a free vote.

the government would never give a free vote on such a bill, even the way they have sneakly brought it forward shows that they want this bill through.

Invictus_88, this is unacceptable, but not surprising. it is, as with ID Cards another attempt by the labour government to move to a totalitarian dictatorship. I do not see it having any problem going through in the commmons myself, I dont put a lot of faith in the current opposition to stop it. I think, like in many examples over the last 9 years we must look to the Lords to stop this.  

[A Lost Iguana]

I don't know if Tony has enough control of his party to pass something like this so quietly. He no longer has his massive majority.  

[Invictus_88]

I've been relying on the Lords a lot of late. They're not perfect in the way they are selected, but they do at least value well written laws and basic human freedoms.  

[A Lost Iguana]

Invictus_88

I've been relying on the Lords a lot of late. They're not perfect in the way they are selected, but they do at least value well written laws and basic human freedoms.

Oh, I agree with you in the most part. Lords does act to slow down a run-away government but I wish it was an elected body.  

[Invictus_88]

Well, to a degree of course.

Elected how? It'd have to be distinct from the public commons elections, surely?  

[Captain Churchill]

Invictus_88

Well, to a degree of course.

Elected how? It'd have to be distinct from the public commons elections, surely?

how about an elected committee? how about having the public elect a committee every general election whos job is to screen potentual Lords the PM puts forward?  

[Invictus_88]

Captain Churchill

Invictus_88

Well, to a degree of course.

Elected how? It'd have to be distinct from the public commons elections, surely?

how about an elected committee? how about having the public elect a committee every general election whos job is to screen potentual Lords the PM puts forward?

I was thinking something a bit more radical, like say, removing all powers of the PM to choose lords. I'm a big fan of that.

A certain few could be put forward by each party (as selected by leading [or all] members of each party) on the basis of their seats in the commons.

The Lords only works because they are not subject to the whips, because there are a lot of speacialists in certain academic fields and because the quality of debate is higher.

Non-party selections should, in my view, be selected by an independent committee. They would be selected from people exceling in the arts, in science, in law, sports and literature.

Also; for sure we should have at least one representative for each of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu faiths. Catholic too if there are none already.

The most difficult question, is how to have an apolitical and -truly- meriotratic means of selecting the non party specific and nonreligious members.  

[Captain Churchill]

Invictus_88

Captain Churchill

Invictus_88

Well, to a degree of course.

Elected how? It'd have to be distinct from the public commons elections, surely?

how about an elected committee? how about having the public elect a committee every general election whos job is to screen potentual Lords the PM puts forward?

I was thinking something a bit more radical, like say, removing all powers of the PM to choose lords. I'm a big fan of that.

A certain few could be put forward by each party (as selected by leading [or all] members of each party) on the basis of their seats in the commons.

The Lords only works because they are not subject to the whips, because there are a lot of speacialists in certain academic fields and because the quality of debate is higher.

Non-party selections should, in my view, be selected by an independent committee. They would be selected from people exceling in the arts, in science, in law, sports and literature.

Also; for sure we should have at least one representative for each of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu faiths. Catholic too if there are none already.

The most difficult question, is how to have an apolitical and -truly- meriotratic means of selecting the non party specific and nonreligious members.

ah yes... decentralization. However, who, after getting the position of PM would remove from himmself powers to effectivly control membership of the lords?

I would support your suggestion, dont know how many others would though.  

[Invictus_88]

I would. I hope I'd have courage enough to have all the obviously purchased peers thrown out as well.

But hey, true. I'm not a politician. They've spent years (trying through hope, or lying through greed) in climbing the greasy pole to power.

I fear you're right, those who manage to grab hold of power have probably sacraficed a lot of integrity to get there.

Not many would support decentralisation, not least shown in that if they did then the tories would be kicking arse by now. However I'm fairly sure that unless people start to get intimidated by real or illusiory terrorism, they'll soon start to flow back (or, I hope, lash back) against the prevalence of centralised power and a presidential PM.

I hope they do, anyway.

confused  

[Captain Churchill]

Invictus_88

I would. I hope I'd have courage enough to have all the obviously purchased peers thrown out as well.

But hey, true. I'm not a politician. They've spent years (trying through hope, or lying through greed) in climbing the greasy pole to power.

I fear you're right, those who manage to grab hold of power have probably sacraficed a lot of integrity to get there.

Not many would support decentralisation, not least shown in that if they did then the tories would be kicking arse by now. However I'm fairly sure that unless people start to get intimidated by real or illusiory terrorism, they'll soon start to flow back (or, I hope, lash back) against the prevalence of centralised power and a presidential PM.

I hope they do, anyway.

confused

3nodding  

[Invictus_88]

Well, let's see if I can expand such support over the next few years..

A singular " 3nodding " is a satisfactory first step.

Probably.