Britain: A dying democracy

[bigfootedfred]

In January the commissioner of the Metropolitan police got into enormous trouble for saying that he couldn't see why the Soham murders had become such a big story. Like every other journalist, I marvelled at his inability to see what makes a story run. But now, as I follow the news, I have developed a blind spot of my own. Piece by piece, month by month, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. It is engaged in a ferocious power-grab. Yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care.

The government is briskly and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the individual to the state, of the Lords to the Commons, and of MPs to ministers. The ID cards bill will allow the authorities unprecedented surveillance of our lives, and the power to curtail our ordinary activities by withdrawing that card. The legislative and regulatory reform bill, now entering its final stages, will let ministers alter laws by order, rather than having to argue their case in parliament. Then this weekend brought another shocking government proposal to increase its own power and weaken the restraints upon it. Lord Falconer made clear that the government intends to drastically curtail the powers of the Lords. The current convention is that peers cannot block any legislation contained in a party's manifesto. In future peers will have to pass any legislation that the government deems important, whether it was in the manifesto or not. They will effectively be neutered.

It appears that these changes cannot be stopped. Last week the Lords gave up their battle to stop the imposition of an identity-card register. They had pointed out that they were under no obligation to pass the bill, as the Labour manifesto promised the scheme would be voluntary, but what was proposed was essentially compulsory. The government's retaliation for their principled stand was swift, and should alarm all of us. These events reveal that our parliamentary system is already too feeble to stop a determined executive imposing its will.

The Guardian

Related links

Say NO to ID
Save Parliment
BBC

Please take the time to explore the links.
Failure to see this for what it might be, the powers it could enact. could be the death of Britains democracy.
Those who posted on the threads regarding, and have read indpendantly or otherwise,
and know about the Legslative and legal reform bill, the ID card bill, The Anti terror bill .. and so many others...
Know exactly what i am talking about.

[Tostig]

Since when has Britain been a democracy? I've always understood that we're a constitutional monarchy, and that while Parliament may be necessary the fact that we vote for it isn't. There are plenty of historical precedents for only allowing certain groups (Anglicans, those with a certain amount of land, men older than 21 etc.) the vote.

If I wanted Britain to be a democracy I'd be far more worried about the role of whips in passing acts.

[bigfootedfred]

Since when has Britain been a democracy? I've always understood that we're a constitutional monarchy, and that while Parliament may be necessary the fact that we vote for it isn't. There are plenty of historical precedents for only allowing certain groups (Anglicans, those with a certain amount of land, men older than 21 etc.) the vote.

i don't think you understand the issue at hand.
The Bill proposed has been called 'the abolition of parliament bill' by several leading Cambridge law professors.
Please do not dismiss these issues.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. you can all check my post records for yourself. i am no conspiracy theorist.
These are very real threats to what we call 'democracy', if it is or not in title simply is not relevant.

Those voting Aye agreed that the scrutiny of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill by the Standing Committee would be finished by Thursday 9th March 2006. (The transcripts of that committee can be read here.) There had been no vote after the Second Reading debate.

Following this scrutiny the Report Stage and Third Reading debates on the floor of the House would be scheduled to complete in one day, with the latter debate being no longer than an hour.

This scheduling is in accordance with Standing Order 83A, but the MPs summarily decided that Standing Order 83B would not apply. This rule specifies how a committee of MPs appointed by the Speaker is supposed to decide how to schedule the Third Reading debate, and nullifying it means it can proceed more swiftly than usual.

The timetable for dealing with any amendments to this Bill to emerge from the House of Lords would be set later.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has been called the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" by several leading lawyers because it appears to give the Government an unrestrained ability to rewrite laws as it chooses without passing them through Parliament.

The public Whip

I have been following these matters for some time.
This very issue was raised before on this same forum.
THREAD
It was believed at the time, that the bill would not pass as the lords would stop it.
Now look at my first post at the top of the page.

[MoROmeTe]

I in Romania look at Britain as being a model for what government should be, and I am studying Political Science... and I sincerely doubt that brits would stand by and see Parlament severely limited in its power.

Other than that I simply do not have the time to go through all of the debate...

[Tom Paine]

I in Romania look at Britain as being a model for what government should be, and I am studying Political Science... and I sincerely doubt that brits would stand by and see Parlament severely limited in its power.

Other than that I simply do not have the time to go through all of the debate...

You are seeing it happen now, as we speak (ot literally but almost); that is exactly what the L&RR Bill seeks to do, to hamstring Parliament and pass all the power of the government of the country to Ministers.

[Carach]

Since when has Britain been a democracy? I've always understood that we're a constitutional monarchy, and that while Parliament may be necessary the fact that we vote for it isn't. There are plenty of historical precedents for only allowing certain groups (Anglicans, those with a certain amount of land, men older than 21 etc.) the vote.

If I wanted Britain to be a democracy I'd be far more worried about the role of whips in passing acts.

britain is the greatest example of working democracy in the world, tostig.

if you didnt realise, the monarchy havent done much in many years - they have the power to, but havent.

The queen could stop mr blair's dictatorship schemes (if thats what they are anyway...), mr blair also does not have the power to remove the monarchy, the monarchy can stop dictatorship anytime they like.

[Lord_Crichton]

Britain has never been a democracy and i would argue that no state since Ancient Athens has been truely democratic. However Britain is a Republic...sort of with unelected elements. No country which preachs about democracy is truely democratic, just taking the "moral high ground"

[Scar Face]

I think this is just another conspiracy theorist. Its really getting old, Britain isnt even a democracy. Regardless of that fact, they arent taking away your power to vote, or any such thing as that. Really, calm down.

[Garbarsardar]

What is the voter turnout in the UK?

[Lord_Crichton]

About 60%

[Tostig]

Britain is a Republic

Not in my lifetime. It was last a republin in 1658

As I said, it's a constitutional monarchy, with Archbishops and Bishops having permanent places in the House of Lords. To quote Wiki

The Church of England is the established church of the state in England.

Further more the British constitution isn't an entrenched one. Major changes have been made before (The Bill of Rights, 19th Century electorial reforms and on joining the EU.)

[Garbarsardar]

Not in my lifetime. It was last a republin in 1658

As I said, it's a constitutional monarchy, with Archbishops and Bishops having permanent places in the House of Lords. To quote Wiki

Further more the British constitution isn't an entrenched one. Major changes have been made before (The Bill of Rights, 19th Century electorial reforms and on joining the EU.)

Right. Still it is not a ministerial dictatorship, and the proposed bill could lead to that. Now I don't believe that the intention of the bill is to bring a V for Vendetta type totalitarian state, but having seen the political machinations of Blair&co, I am instinctively suspicious of by-words "cuting through the red tape and similar idiocies. The parliament (even this docile one) was always a hurdle for the fast tracking of ministerial wet dreams, and it should remain as such.

[Denny Crane!]

Not in my lifetime. It was last a republin in 1658

As I said, it's a constitutional monarchy, with Archbishops and Bishops having permanent places in the House of Lords. To quote Wiki

Further more the British constitution isn't an entrenched one. Major changes have been made before (The Bill of Rights, 19th Century electorial reforms and on joining the EU.)

People automatically dismissing these sorts of ideas and questions raised by BFF are exactly how the UK government is getting away with things like the legislative and regulatory reform bill without notice.

Peter

[Last Roman]

Further more the British constitution isn't an entrenched one. Major changes have been made before (The Bill of Rights, 19th Century electorial reforms and on joining the EU.)

about the British constitution, there isn't an actual physical piece of paper right? It is more assumed rights, correct (maybe not?)

[Tostig]

The Constitution of the United Kingdom is an area of uncodified law, consisting of both written and unwritten sources. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law". Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish any written or unwritten element of the constitution.

Most of is written down (I've seen it on TV), but on everything from A4 printed paper to ancient rolls. According to wiki:
* Acts of Parliament (written)
o Treaties (written)
* EU law (written)
* Common Law (unwritten)
* Conventions (unwritten)
* Royal Prerogative (unwritten)
* Works of authority (written)

[Tom Paine]

There was me thinking it was because the press didn't find it worthy of the sort of coverage a murder gets, cowen...

[Denny Crane!]

There was me thinking it was because the press didn't find it worthy of the sort of coverage a murder gets, cowen...

And whys that?

peter

[Nihil]

I suppose it was inevitable that the Lords, who have bizarrely been thrust into the unlikely role of preservers of civil liberties and good sense of late (a sign of the times if ever there was one), would come under fire sooner rather than later. Once they are gone, it's not looking good for you Brits.

[crjs1]

I suppose it was inevitable that the Lords, who have bizarrely been thrust into the unlikely role of preservers of civil liberties and good sense of late (a sign of the times if ever there was one), would come under fire sooner rather than later. Once they are gone, it's not looking good for you Brits

I disagree, the quicker the lords are radically reformed (made electable, or abolished) the better, its a terrible anomaly that an unelected group of 'Lords', 'Ladys', and Bishops can block the wishes of the elected representatives of the people. Instead of the Lords there should be a far greater role in the scrutiny and amendment of legislation provided by Parliaments Committee's, as in the Scottish Parliament. The Lords are an embarrassment, just look at the fuss they made over fox hunting and the homosexual age of consent, holding up progressive change for years. GET RID OF THEM!

[the Black Prince]

i think the lords are an extrreemely useful unique anomoly that absolutely must be preserved

the british upper house is full of a mix of appointed politicians (government ministers not from the commons) and experts.
and its these experts who make the lords special. retired judges, former leading politiciansd, former top businessmen etc etc etc. these people are granted life peerages to bring their expertise to the role of government, to scrutinise and modify legislation to make sure its workable.

who better to adsvise the commons on whether a piece of proposed criminal law is actually going to be workable, and, in its current draft form, acomplish its aims, than former judges who have spent upwards of 50 years enforcing the laws, and now that they've stopped that, can bring a lifetimes experience to shaping it.

that is a far far far better system than one where the upper house has no function at all, or one where the upper house is as equally full of politically orientated politically partisan petty time serving ignorant politicians, who invariably are experts at the backstabbing world of politics, but know nothing at all about transport, the military, health, science, economics and most notably IT and all the other things they might be legislating on.


holding up progressive change? well, the lords were 2/3rds in favour of civil partnerships (something like 221 in favour, 133 against i think) and if there's anything serious that the commons really want to pass, the lords can be overruled by the use of the parliament act

as far as the hutning act goes, the lords had some very valid objections. the act has proved impossible to enforce, utterly useless, and as far as i can recall, there havn't been any prosecutions under it, despite numerous complaints of the act being flouted by various groups.
perhaps if the commons had listened to the lords, and looked over their amendments to the bill, we might have got some working legislation...

i might remind you that:: the lords cannot stop legislation, at all
they can only return it to the commons with amendments, or delay it for 1 year. they cannot hold up progressive change for years, they do not have that power.


for information on the british constitutuion, sources, and scope, see my post on the subject in the british monarchy thread

power in this country is balanced between the Parliament, and Her Majesty's Government

Her Majesty's Government is made up of the Queen AND her Ministers
Parliament has the power to legislate, and anything written in law is supreme. so the queen (and government) have no power over anything financial, as the budget, and the national Treasurery are controled by Parliament. as long back as the 1500s the treasurer was controled by a senior minsiter to the King.

those powers not governed by statute are governed by 3 things
parliamenary privilidge (the rules of parliament)
english common law (judicial decisions)
royal prerogative (powers of the government)

the rules of parliament affect only MPs, and only in the House itself
the english common law can bind the queen, but the common law says she is exempt from all criminal charges
the english common law binds the government too.

The Royal Prerogative has two elements
there are those parts exercised by the Queen - power to dissolve parliament, power to summon parliament, power to appoint a prime minister, the royal assent to bills (singing laws)
there are those powers exercised by the Queen on advice from her ministers - power to sign treaties, power to declare war, power to appoint peerages, power to appoint judges, power to appoint ministers of state (on advice from the PM alone)

so when finding out what the queen can and cannot do, first you must ask yourself, has parliament passed a law about it
parliament ruled in i think the bill of rights, that King William IV signed, that only parliament could raise an army (but no mention of navy, and obviously, of air force)
next, has a senior judged ruled against it.
is the power, under convention, something exercised with the advice of the ministers of state (regarding the UK) or the privy council (regarding the commonwealth)

if non of the above apply, the queen can do whatever she wants, as the constituion dictates which power originally held by HM Government is now held either by Parliament, or by the Queen on Advice from her ministers