Comes Rei Militaris
Could New Labour be totaliterian?
They remove habeus corpus, the overturn the magna carta, they removed a heckler from their conference (81 year old) and held him without charge under the terrorism act and to top it all off they are wanting to stop local elections next year supposedly so they can reform councils.
I'm not being serious really, but you could be forgiven for wondering.
Peter
Comes Rei Militaris
It must be said, though I think that the worst Home Sexretary we've had was Michael Howard (Tory), Labour has a history of quite authoritarian Home Secs, far more than the Tories.
Dux Limitis
They are stopping local elections?
Is that even constitutionally possible?
Comes Rei Militaris
We don't have a constitution...
Dux Limitis
You might not call it a constitution.Originally Posted by imb39
But surely you have some kind of document(s) that line out the "voting rules" (that's basically what a constitution is: a law that describes the political process)
Comes Rei Militaris
A lot is theoretical. To be honest, I don't fully understand our laws...
Thats the view of 99.99% of Britons, and that figure, my friends, don't look right.
ron :wub:in swanson
isn't Britain's "constitution" more like traditional rights than an actual document outlining rights?
house of Rububula, under the patronage of Nihil, patron of Hotspur, David Deas, Freddie, Askthepizzaguy and Ketchfoop
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
-Mark Twain
Mr Common Sense
No, its a set of shared assumptions... that Blair's Labour looks to be walking all over. To quote myself on criminal justice:
That is one area of life alone, and that was off the top of my head. We are losing freedom of speech (loss of the right to criticise religions, Glorification of Terrorism bill that was struck down); Blair's Labour is getting more involved on the local and specific level, dealing with small problems and attending to them as well as the larger non-problems they see. And our past two home secretaries (Blunkett, and the current Clarke) are the worst of the lot, with those justice measures, biometric ID cards, and so on.
So... yes, Blair's Labour is in fact pretty totalitarian.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
ron :wub:in swanson
thats what I was going for, I just didnt know how to word it
house of Rububula, under the patronage of Nihil, patron of Hotspur, David Deas, Freddie, Askthepizzaguy and Ketchfoop
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company
-Mark Twain
Comes Rei Militaris
ID cards hah! Do you realise there is a possibilty that they could sell companies information about us right down to our health information, was a point raised in the arguement against them which the defender denied would actually happen but not that the possibility had been raised.
Peter
I think that what has caused some of the more detestable policies of the Blair government has been incompetence rather than totalitarianism... the tories may have been crooked but at least the (sort of) knew what they were doing.
Comes Rei Militaris
I don't think that ID cards will get through now, anyway. Blair is much too weak to force it through...
Comes Rei Militaris
Definitly not no your right. What do you think as a teacher of the education reforms, the wording made it sound like back door privatisation to me or am I reading to much into it?
Peter
Well I never thought i'd be grateful of the tories, but they seem to have realised how they would stop Blair getting things through - they would oppose him!
In the past, tories have said "How did he manage to get the war on iraq through?", but they also voted for it. It shows the mockery that's been made of the political system where everything labour passed, the tories agreed with them on it! The two parties just couldn't find anything wrong with each other.
However, now the tories seem to have noticed that when they oppose new labour they can annoy Blair, so they seem to do it whatever it was now. They'd oppose practically anything so it's difficult for Blair to get anything through at the moment, especially since he's leading a very capitalist party where about 80% of the members are socialists who's rather not kick up a fuss.
It's really a farce, but our political system always has been.
Comes Rei Militaris
The exact opposite, actually.
The Tories did not play their hand well, it must be said. Their initial stance was reasonable given the information available, but they should have switched...In the past, tories have said "How did he manage to get the war on iraq through?", but they also voted for it. It shows the mockery that's been made of the political system where everything labour passed, the tories agreed with them on it! The two parties just couldn't find anything wrong with each other.
See my first statementHowever, now the tories seem to have noticed that when they oppose new labour they can annoy Blair, so they seem to do it whatever it was now. They'd oppose practically anything so it's difficult for Blair to get anything through at the moment, especially since he's leading a very capitalist party where about 80% of the members are socialists who's rather not kick up a fuss.
No worse than any other.It's really a farce, but our political system always has been.
Dux Limitis
Maybe the conservatives and new labour wil switch places in the political spectrum, like the GOP and Democrats once did.
Would be kinda strange:
left-wing conservatives and right-wing labour.
Maybe they wil have to change their names too.
Comes Rei Militaris
Not actually assumptions it has to be more definite than that. It is conventions, customs and statutes. You might think i'm being pedantic but assumption is to vague, it is more like a legal precedent in that once in place it requires a lot to change it. Though not as much as if we had an actual written constitution.
Habeus Corpus was a statute meaning it was a codified law or piece of legislation. Shame it was overturned so easily.
Peter
Mr Common Sense
Lord Kal, Blair needs the support of his own party for any measure, as labour has half the Commons (it has to, to have won outright) and can pass to the Lords anything it wants, barring significant backbench rebellion.
cowen70, Backdoor to privatisation? Backdoor to religious education on behalf of the state more like! The academy nearest me ogot better results by expelling most of its pupils, and is a religious school (Manchester Academy, was Ducie). Pointless. And an Ofsted report to an academy was excellent... the academy teaches, at best, ID.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Divus
Britains constitution is in 3 parts
Statutes considered constitutional
Conventions
Royal Prerogative (exercised by the monarch - ability to dissolve parliament, royal assent; and exercised by her majesty's government - ability to declare war etc)
Key Statutes are
Bill of Rights 1689 - following the glorious revolution, restricted the power of the monarch
Act of Settlement 1700 - Laws of Sucession and also Judicial Independance
Act of Union 1707 - created the United Kingdom of Great Britain
Act of Union 1800 - expanded the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
The Representation of the People Acts - franchise and elections
Parliament Act 1911 1949 - restrictions on lords powers
Life Peerages Act 1958 - restrictions on lords membership
European Communities Act 1973 - UK subject to EU Law
Human Rights Act 1998 - brings the ECHR into UK Law
Scotland Act 1998 - devolves power to scottish parliament
Government of Wales Act 1998 - devolves power to welsh assembly
Lords Reform Act 1999 - restricts membership of house of lords
plus key cases of
Case of Proclamations 1611 - monarchs proclamtions subordinate to parliament
Entrick v Carrington 1765 - government power cannot be exercised unless its legal to do so (i.e government cannot do anything thats actually illegal)
the royal prerogative are powers held by the queen and exercised either by the queen or her government. they are regulated by statutes, and by convention
convention is a list of parliamentary operating procedures and traditions.
such as
Right of the House to Regulate its own proceedings
Absolute freedom of speech in the house. (cannot sue for defamation for words said in parliament)
freedom from Arrest
Freedom from the Monarch to enter the commons
Doctrines of Ministerial Responsibility
and the most important convention of them all
The Rule of Law
The rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities.
There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law.
Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law.
as emphasised by the great constitutional lawyer A V Dicey
in England, Habeus Corpus is a statute, but its origins lie as part of the english common law, a basic presumption of the common law, and therefore, any statute that proclaims a situation against habeus corpus takes precedence and authority even if it doesn't mention it. habeus Corpus is still applied by English Judges, except where statute dictates otherwise (with terror suspects for instance)
the Habeus Corpus Act 1679 has NOT been overturned. it is still in force.
however, the use of the writ only applies to challenge the lawfulness of a prisoners detention. therefore if a prisoner is held under procedure outlined in another act of parliament (ie the Prevention of Terrorism Act) Habeus Corpus will not apply. his detention is lawful.
as to elections
they want to SUSPEND election cycles in a number of local authorities mainly district and unitary, not county level, pending possible merging of small authorities back into a county level system, or some other change.
in the UK, an entire council is never elected at once. in my home town, the borough council (a unitary authority) elects 1/4 of its seats every year, each seat coming up every 4 years, each councillor sitting for 4 years.
the government wants to suspend one election cycle, meaning 1/4 of the councillors will sit for a year longer, to prevent elections being held for councillors who would only sit for 1 year, after whuich their council may be abolished.
to clarify, my borough council is unitary. it governs my city and the surrounding area totally independant from the County Council (Buckinghamshire Council)
other areas of counties have district councils that are subserviant to the local County Council (i.e North Norfolk District Council)
there are also metropoliton borough councils, that operate outside of their geographical county council, and the london boroughs and London Authority
the government plans to scrap the 2 tier county and district system, and replace it with a system that will most likely be
all rural areas governed by the relevant geographical county council
all urban areas governed by a local unitary authority (borough council)
OR
the whole country redivided up into single tier borough councils. which would remove any significance of county names except for geographical purposes...
the plan is to reform these
whilst these reforms are being enacted, for the 2008 cycle, the government has suggested, and consulted on suspending elections in certain authorities that year to prevent the election of old style councils for just 1 year
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
