The government will shortly pass the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which will allow the law to be changed without recourse to Parliament. Along with the deliberate denial of the need for an English Parliament this is the most aggressively anti-democratic act the current government has attempted.
And what does the BBC, the leftist creation which the majority of people rely on to provide them with news have to say? Aside from an interview with Ken Clarke this morning, the BBC has done nothing. Today’s politics page makes no mention of it.
The people will, it seems, only wake up to the menace this government represents when it is too late to protest (as you no longer can in Parliament Square).
More info here: Right links
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Paul on February 22nd, 2006 - 10:11 am
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is abhorrent to anyone who believes in liberal democracy. That this Government is anti-democratic is not just an opinion – Bills like this prove it.
#2 by Jim on February 22nd, 2006 - 2:08 pm
To be fair, they may be somewhat slow, but the BBC do now have an article up:
here
#3 by lascivious on February 22nd, 2006 - 8:12 pm
Bill Murphey said “I have given assurances that there are more safeguards on the face of this bill than before, that we will have statutory consultation, we will not do anything that is highly controversial and the relevant select committees of the House of Commons will have a veto on every single proposal,”
Note that:
“more safeguards [...] than before” is meaningless – it is relative to a previous version of the bill and he doesn’t tell us what these safeguards are.
“statutory consultation” does not bind the government to abide by the consultation, or even publish the results, and who is it that chooses whom to consult?
“we will not do anything that is highly controversial” the Oxford English Dictionary defines controversy as “debate or disagreement about a matter which arouses strongly contrasting opinions”. The use of the word “highly” can mean two things:
a) Many people hold contrasting views.
Thus, if not many know of it, one could sneak unsavoury changes to legislation through without it being “highly controversial”
b) The opinions that a few people hold are extremely different.
But if the opinions differ considerably, but not enough for the minister to judge “highly controversial”, then the changes could be made. Note that this judgement is entirely subjective and would most certainly depend on the agenda the said minister has.
“select committees [...] will have a veto” means that a handfull of MP’s, rather than the whole of parliament, will be able to change the nation’s law. It amounts to nothing.
#4 by lascivious on February 22nd, 2006 - 8:14 pm
oooooer. English seems to have linked to an article you have. I didn’t do it!
#5 by Gav on February 22nd, 2006 - 9:12 pm
No, my blog’s cheeky like that – it links to things all on its own!
And Jim, are you James Naughtie?