Slashdot Log In
UK Parliament to be Made Redundant?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Mar 22, 2006 06:16 PM
from the politics-the-same-the-world-over dept.
from the politics-the-same-the-world-over dept.
caluml writes "The Guardian is reporting that the current UK government is trying to sneak a new law though in an innocuously named bill called 'The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill,' which would get rid of that pesky, interfering need to put laws to the Houses of Commons and Lords to approve. There is already the Parliament Act that can be used to force laws through, which was used recently for the hunting bill. " The original coverage is a bit old but the bill is still being tossed around in parliament. The text of the bill is also available via the UK Parliament website.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Informative)
Anything that goes through the parliament act will generate enough publicity for the public to kick up a fuss about it if they don't like it anyway.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:3, Insightful)
Has he forgotten that England has suffered terrorism before, and survived without removing everyone's civil lib
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes, of course. However, as they don't have to worry about being re-elected, they can say what they think and vote for what they really think is in the nation's best interest instead of pandering to lobbyists and campaign contributors. In that sense, at least, they're more likely to be impartial than an elected official.
It's the same idea as the Romans used in having members of their Senate (Their "conscript fathers" as they were sometimes called.) serve for life. By taking away the need to curry favor for re-election, they were expected to be able to put themselves above the special interest groups and work only for the good of the state. To some extent, it worked, because the senators took their responsibilities seriously.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Insightful)
You may have seen in recent years how easy it is to cower the electorate with the thread of 'terrorists.' The majority is willing to give up personal freedoms in order for the government to protect them from a spectre. If the majority feels this way, and the upper house is elected by any means then it becomes easy to pass such laws.
Oh, and don't say that a codified constitution would protect the people from such things. As we can see in the USA, the constitution must be interpreted by individuals, and these individuals are susceptible to the influences of their time.
I have had the opportunity to observe the debate in both houses during my time in London, and met with members of both houses. At the end of the experience, I am usually left wondering why we put up with the house of commons. Individually, I know a few members who are rational and reasonable individuals, but when you put them together you get a room full of idiots. I believe Gilbert and Sullivan said it best when they said each MP 'has got to leave his brain outside.'
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguably so, but at the moment, only a small proportion of the Lords are hereditaries (parent is forgetting the Lords reform over the last few parliaments). The rest are appointed, and not a few after having given large sums of cash to the Labour Party - but that's another discussion.
The balance of power, however, is held by approx 160 independent Lords - no party alignment. And by and large, they do a very good job, and refuse to be treated as lobby fodder by the Government with its powers of appointment to powerful ministries.
It's some comment on the current state of affairs that an unelected body with a proportion there by heriditary right is doing a better, more transparent, more thoughtful job than the elected one...
US Senate as an unelected body (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the whole house of review concept was always meant to be a non-elected body.
One of the major checks and balances built into the US constitution was that the Senate was unelected. They founders thought it would be a huge error to have both houses elected--the point of the Senate was an unelected body that was separated from politics. (Which is why certain types of decisions pass through the Senate--such as the approval of judge appointments.)
All that became horribly messed up by the direct election of Senators. Since they are now directly elected, but still have powers that were granted to them based on the idea that they weren't directly elected, they've completely disbalanced the system. (The only thing that makes the Senate work as a house of review is the fact that the constituency borders, since they're states, cannot be artificially gerrymandered. It'd be cool if they were elected in a different system, a change I'm open to.)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK system of government undoubtedly has its share of problems, but the House of Lords isn't it.
Except for the fact that it's not a sort of thing that you can just create (it's more something that you can only have, if it's been in existence since before the rest of the government formed) I'd say that it wouldn't be such a bad idea to do something like that here, in my more exasperated moments. In theory, it's a pretty good idea -- a bunch of people who aren't subject to the whims of fat-walleted corporate/PAC pimps and who have no other function in the government aside from taking the longest possible view. (Arguably this is the function of the USSC here, I suppose.)
The purpose that our Senate was originally supposed to serve, namely to be a brake on the other half of the Legislature, it seems to regularly fail to do; each party's House and Senate contingents seem to be in lock-step on all but the smallest details (you generally have to get down to the wording of particular bills to find differences between Senate [harvard.edu] and House [harvard.edu] versions, the intent is rarely very different on major issues). So I'm not sure that I would be dismissing the concept of a House of Lords so quickly. If I were a UK citizen (subject?) I'd be awfully reticent to throw away anything that might act as a brake on the rest of government, however anachronistic it might seem. If they were trying to drag the entire country back to the 17th century I might feel less cautious, but it doesn't seem like there's any evidence of that.
However bad you think your government is now, with enough meddling it could always get spectacularly worse in a hurry.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, we do have a written constitution. What we don't have is a codified constitution (our constitution is drawn from many sources). The grandparent poster is half right. The prime minister does have to be an MP, however they do not have to be a member of the House of Commons. The procedure for selecting a PM is roughly as follows:
Since the creation of Lords is one of the Monarch's Prerogative Powers, it is quite possible for her to select someone completely random, create them a peer, and then ask them to form a government. For the last couple of centuries or so it has been traditional for the monarch to invite the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government, since they are usually guaranteed support of the majority of the house.
If, at any point, the PM ceases to have the support of half of the house then a vote of no confidence can be passed. If this happens, a general election must be called and a new government elected. This can happen, for example, if they have a narrow majority and one of their members resigns or dies. At this point a by-election will be called, and their seat contested again. If someone from the opposition takes it then the government can lose its majority.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a second. I thought that you guys had a Queen or something.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, technically, it is the Queen that rules Britain...the government that has been granted it's position continues to exist only because it promotes order within her realm and she is thus satisfied with it's function of keeping the country from falling into utter chaos. Technically. If that government were to grossly step out of line it is entirely within her authority to remove it, or at least bring it back in line.
Ultimately though, it comes down to the People. If they won't support the Queen in her actions then very quickly you'd either find her removed (given past examples in Britain, this would likely involve plenty of bloodshed and one dead monarch) or a slap on the wrist given and an illusion of a limitation of the Monarchy's powers (which would merely be the creation of a new government with expanded authority, that again merely exists because it keeps the Monarchy satisfied the nation is running properly...technically).
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Informative)
In a theocracy, the church runs the government. In England, the government runs the church. As these both have the same entity running both the church and the government, it is easy to confuse them.
With England, however, the government runs the church because the church that used to claim authority (The Catholic Church) was asserting too much authority, so they got rid of it. And then, because it was expected at the time, they made their own church, which they have then continued to basically ignore.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:4, Interesting)
The public kicks up a fuss about LOTS of things, but they never get listened to. For example: Iraq, ID cards, school reforms...
The ID cards bill has been rejected by the Lords again and again, because frankly they're sane. But my understanding is this act could well be used to force it through, to the detriment of everyone.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:3, Informative)
1. Iraq war. People said no and protested, yet I see troops still there and even helping start it.
2. More people voted in Big brother than in the general election.. maybe it's just me.. but I don't think
RTFA - this is not about the parliament act (Score:5, Informative)
What is in question is this new proposed act, that allows any cabinet member to alter any piece of legislation by conducting a single vote with the minimum of debate or discussion. The parliament act is usually only used after ages of battling, so at least we are certain that MPs have looked at and understood what is being passed. With this new act, it would be very easy to sandwich scary ideas into an innoculous looking package, and sneak that through the vote. The worst case scenario is that one such scary bill would be a motion to alter this bill itself - and remove parliament from the process altogether.
Even if we trust the government not to abuse it, this is still a terrifyingly huge loophole. And in fact, the bill is currently *very* close to being passed. It only has a 1-hour final hearing in the commons, and then it's onto the Lords. And if the Lords don't cooperate, a truly malicious government can use the Parliament act to force it through....
Re:RTFA - this is not about the parliament act (Score:4, Informative)
*No*, that's the *status quo* (almost). The new Act will allow a cabinet member to alter any piece of legistlation *without recourse to parliament*. Ie, without a vote! Read it. Listen to the screams of those who have been attending the backwater committee stages that have been cooking this up. This is an unprecedented move to bypass parliament altogether to punish it for standing in the way of the government's 'reforms', hidden under the cloak of 'deregulation'. Only 'controversial' changes would have to be voted on in parliament, with the ministers themselves deciding what is 'controversial'! If this passes, Jim Murphy's name may well go down in history as the man who killed democracy in the UK.
If you think this sounds like hyperbole, just check it out yourself.
Re:The Parliament Act. (Score:5, Informative)
To separate out the two issues you're conflating:
The Parliament Act is there to prevent the unelected Lords from blocking legislation which the elected Commons has a mandate to implement. By convention this means the content of the goverment's election manifesto.
Now the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill means that not only will the Lords not be able to oppose Government policy (in the manifesto or not), this will be extended to the Commons.
Or, to put it in constitutional speak: the Executive usurps the power of the Legislature, and neuters the capacity of the Judiciary.
Yes, our freedom-loving government is plainly tired of all that mucking around attending Parliament, and persuading MPs to support its bright ideas. In future (so goes the vision), our beloved, trusted ministers will be able to amend, replace and repeal legislation by fiat. The only restrictions are that ministers can't impose new taxes (but can introduce new fees. Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to), or introduce prison sentences longer than 2 years.
So could HMG decide to make ID Cards entirely compulsory? Could they require all public services to be disposed of to PFI? Could they abolish the Scottish Parliament? Yes, Yes and Yes (they couldn't impose laws in devolved matters, but they could abolish the whole thing).
And the checks and balances on ministerial absolutism? Erm... none. The minister merely has to consider a vaguely written checklist and be personally satisfied that's it's a Good Idea overall. Because ministers are of course entirely impartial judges of their own proposals. It's already being called The Abolition of Parliament Act [toque.co.uk] as Parliament simply won't be able to scrutinise legislation in advance or block it. But it's also an Abolition of The Judiciary Act as the courts can't challenge Ministerial Orders after the fact on the basis of being disproportionate or removing freedoms and protections from the citizenry as long as the Minister can show that he/she has thought long and hard about it. Presumably the fact that Ministers are genetically incapable of thinking like this won't help...
Separation of Powers? We've Heard of It
Which, as the Executive can impose what the hell it likes without the checks and balances of an adversarial Parliament, can be entirely ignored except for the 3 months before an election.
Pesky bureaucracy (Score:3, Funny)
And while you're at it, why waste time voting?
Let's get rid of that time-consuming thing...
Remember, remember... (Score:4, Funny)
In COBN3T Britain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In COBN3T Britain (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the even-more-ironic second line [ingeb.org] to the chorus.
In Sov'yet Britain, Britannia waives the rules! Britons, ever ever shall be slaves to fools.
More accurate and equally applicable (Score:4, Funny)
Errr... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Errr... (Score:5, Funny)
Check out saveparliament.org.uk too (Score:4, Informative)
From memory, it's basically: add or change any laws they feel like, as long as they don't raise taxes, or have jail sentances over 2 years.
And as for why the opposition parties and UK media aren't mentioning it, I have no idea.
To those who don't know what is redundancy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To those who don't know what is redundancy... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here
"It's gonna get blown up anyway" (Score:5, Funny)
Bloody MC (Score:5, Funny)
Once you take the power from the one true Sovereign, who has been selected by God to know what is right for this country, all of this havoc follows in due course.
I say: absolve the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and revert all power to HRH Elizabeth Regina.
We'll then all get along splendidly. (Or at least untill Charles takes the thrown.)
The Queen? (Score:5, Interesting)
How Emperor Blair will rule without bureaucracy... (Score:5, Funny)
Constitution? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
Hm. (Score:4, Insightful)
[1]Note that I'm not equating Tony Blair to Hitler or Labour to the Nazis or anything, just an interesting co-incidence..
Re:Hm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm so paranoid or anything to think that they don't want us to draw parallels here..
Why is this dangerous? (Score:4, Informative)
When my kid is in school learning about how great the US is, and how we're great because we're free, will they teach him that we're not actually free any longer because of a tacit approval of abdication of our rights? No. Because we have a "congress".
I wrote to my MP this morning (Score:4, Informative)
Dear David Drew,
I am hoping you can reassure me concerning the proposed Legislative and
Regulatory Reform (LRR) Bill which I saw reference to on TV over the
weekend and was featured on Radio 4 this week.
My understanding is that the Bill will enable Ministers to reform
legislation without referring directly to Parliament and that MPs and
Peers will not have the ability to modify problematic proposals in the
way they do at present.
Parliamentary scrutiny is at the heart of the democratic process and
any action that weakens the powers of influence of MPs is of great
concern to me.
Please can you help clarify what the Bill will allow and whether you
will be supporting or opposing it.
Yours sincerely...
Article 48? (Score:4, Informative)
To a large extent..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, huge parliamentary majorities were won on minority votes thanks to the first past the post, 3 party system. If I remember rightly, Mrs. T held a majority in excess of 300 MPs with only 40% of the electorate voting for her. Tony Blair commanded about 35% of the vote when less than 50% of the electorate turned out.
With a three figure majority and the back-benches filled with career minded sheep, the government can get pretty much anything they want through so the new law is just icing on the cake. What worries me more is the sort of people they hang with. According to the treasury web site [hm-treasury.gov.uk], the following are being flown in by Gordon Brown, the next Prime Minister, to give advice on business in New Britain:
Bernard Arnault, Chairman and CEO, LVMH
Lord Browne, Group Chief Executive, BP
Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline
Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation
Sir Ka-shing Li, Chairman of the Board, Hutchison Whampoa Ltd
Sir Terry Leahy, CEO, Tesco
Sir John Rose, CEO, Rolls Royce
Robert Rubin, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Citigroup Inc
Lee Scott, President and CEO, Wal-Mart
Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group
Meg Whitman, President and CEO, eBay
James Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for Disengagement and Former President of the World Bank
Yep, that's right. In order to improve the business environment for entrepreneurs and encourage opportunity among the lower classes, Brown is freighting in a convicted monopolist and a horde of bankers and fat-cats some of which are heads of corporations that have been criticised for predatory and/or unfair practises. Hmmmm.. Can't wait 'til the advice starts flowing. "Well everyone, what's the best thing to encourage competition in business"? Patents for everything and tax cuts for the exceptionally rich? Sure thing, no problem now that I can push it through Parliament without a proper debate. Seat in the House of Lords? Two million to you guv but make it untraceable, know what I mean?
Sick country man, a really sick country.
There's no money in the House of Lords these days (Score:4, Funny)
Executive Orders... (Score:4, Insightful)
People are discussing the mechanisms in the UK and Canada to pass a law w/o running it thru parliment, and my understanding of these mechanisms is that they work much like "Executive Orders" do in the US.
The president can sign an executive order and it becomes the law of the land. It can be circumvented by Congress and the Supreme Court, but not easily.
This bill is truly dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I need to write to my MP on this one: he's already strongly and publicly criticised the bill for the insult to democracy it is, and indeed a group of professors of law from our local university (which, for the benefit of US readers, means a l
Re:Maybe In Canada Too (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, some people see an advantage of separating the Head of State from the Head of Government. In the US it would be refreshing to be able to have the Head of State present to solemnize some event, without having to invite the current idiot in the White House who will use the occasion to push whatever's presently on his political agenda.
Re:Maybe In Canada Too (Score:5, Funny)
Already in Canada (Score:4, Informative)
The Powers That Be in Canada, both Federal and Provincial, can already pass a law without running it by Parliament. It's called an Order in Council [about.com]. Theoretically an OIC is used for little things like political appointments, but it can be used for big things too.
If anybody objects, there is always the Notwithstanding Clause [justice.gc.ca] (it's Section 33). It was used for Bills 101 and 178 in Quebec, and Alberta keeps threatening to use it against same-sex marriage. It's been used a number of other times too.
...laura
There is no noble mob (Score:4, Interesting)