![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
I had hoped to be the first to coin the inevitable term, "loangate" over the recent Labour funding scandal. Not surprisingly, though, The Independent has beaten me to it.
Labour sleaze: it's real, it's here, it'll probably bring Blair down. Let's just hope he takes the corrupt & cynical ID cards bill — and more importantly, now, the Abolition of Parliament bill — with him.
Labour shouldn't be dealing in peerages at all, of course: except to abolish them. Sadly the time when Labour might possibly have abolished peerages — or even significantly democratised the upper house — seem long ago and far away, now. May 1997 seems like another time in another world. True, we knew that 'New' Labour wasn't going to be the real Labour that we wanted; but it was dawn after the long Tory night, and there was a mood of optimism in the air.
I got up on the morning after the election and put Billy Bragg records on, in celebration. Though admittedly one of the tracks was 'Ideology', which warns about the dark side of politics.
And how dark that side has turned out to be. It strikes me as slightly ironic that the Abolition of Parliament bill should be starting to come into higher visibility at the same time as the film version of V For Vendetta has just come out.
Technorati Tags: politics, labour, loans. peers, lords, scandal, loangate
March 20 2006, 15:08:50 UTC 6 years ago
What hasn't been mentioned much is that the PM's ability to nominate life peers has been greatly reduced in the last decade, and while at the moment public opinion's ahead of the government on this one, most of the time they've been working slowly on something the general public don't give a toss about.
Now, I agree that the situation over these people is grim, but the fact that the cleanup hasn't been fast enough doesn't alter the fact that after over a century of procrastination a cleanup has finally started.
I'm right with you on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, though.
March 20 2006, 15:38:41 UTC 6 years ago
The bill grants ministers the power to create, modify or strike down laws; and to introduce offenses carrying prison terms of up to two years.
. . . is accurate.
could be read like that, but could equally mean that no new punishable offence can be created, and furthermore maximum sentences for existing offences can only be increased across those lines under some circumstances.
Someone who understands interpretation of laws could tell us which. I'm sure it's completely clear if you understand these things.
March 20 2006, 16:05:06 UTC 6 years ago
((may not create a new offence) OR (increase the penalty for an existing offence)) so that it is punishable...
These lawyers need a programming language.
Anyway, inasmuch as there is such thing as the UK blogosphere, it is alight with discussion of this; or, to put that another way, I have mainly been focussing my attention on discussion about it recently. And the general understanding of that clause seems to be as I described it. But IANAL, of course, and quite possibly, neither is anyone else whose posts I've read.
But above all (and this applies to your next comment, too): if the bill is enacted, it will be possible for ministers to modify that act (that legal programming language will have to support recursion, obviously). So any limitations and safeguards written into the bill have to be considered as irrelevant for our democratic safety.
March 20 2006, 17:27:58 UTC 6 years ago
As for the second point, it could be argued (although remember that IANAL) that under 3 (2) (d) it would be prohibited as removing necessary protection, and under 3 (2) (e) as removing the right of legislators to determine the powers of ministers. In any case, such a move would be liable (under the law as it stood at the point of passage) to be rejected by Parliamentary motion.
March 21 2006, 09:39:26 UTC 6 years ago
What do you think about the fact that on its face, no existing Act is beyond the reach of the new bill? Some commentators are saying that "constitutional" laws like the Bill of Rights and of course the Human Rights Act should be explicitly named on this bill as being outwith its influence.
This is all, of course, part of the problem with not having a written constitution.
March 21 2006, 10:13:44 UTC 6 years ago
Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.
March 20 2006, 15:52:59 UTC 6 years ago
The overall impact of the Bill would be more complex than you say. While I'm against it, it would not actually allow all of the abuses that it is said to permit.