![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Still think it's a free country?
I tend not to rant about party politics in LJ.
There are reasons:
1. I don't think it's the proper forum, and
2. I suspect that my politics differ from many of my friends (both actual and virtual) potentially starting off long boring written debates where I'd rather have a lively one in a pub.
For the record, I see myself as a Liberal Democrat, but probably a little to the right of centre. Many of my friends are I think, to varying degrees, more leftward leaning. But that's fine. We all have a say, we all have an opinion and that's what it's all about.
But what I will rant about, is constitutional politics. The framework under which our supposed democracy operates.
The constitution (gloriously unwritten)provides for checks and balances on the power of individual political parties and on the differing sections of the Establishment. Except that to an increasing degree, it doesn't.
Today in The Times there is an article on the Blair Government's supposed reforms to the British legal system.
I doubt that there are many people who would dispute that the legal system needs reform. But is Tony Blair reforming or grabbing power? There is shortly to be a consultation paper on sweeping changes it has already announced.
Consultations usually take place before firm policy is made. Now we are effectively told ahead of time what is likely to happen to us. The decisions have been taken, the major policy direction decided. Changes on account of the consultation results will be minor and presentational.
As a citizen, you have no say.
Times Article (link seems to be broken, but may get fixed).
The changes included in the recent Criminal Justice Bill were unheralded, reversed government policy and were not announced to Parliament.
The Home Secretary has loudly and openly criticised a judiciary who decide cases against him, and makes no bones about his contempt for woolly-thinking liberal-minded lawyers. More recently, the Criminal Justice Bill (not yet an Act) introduces measures to limit the power of judges in determining sentences.
Effectively we are seeing the rape of the independent judiciary, and the politicisation of the law. Politicians should not be involved in the application of the law. They are too open to knee-jerk, public opinion oriented, vote-winning decisions. And justice is not necessarily the same thing.
It is the nature of governments (of any political stripe)to try and grab power and reduce liberties.
In the UK we have a surprisingly parochial and unsophisticated electorate which allows them to do so. In many countries, fundamental reform issues such as the House of Lords and the entire legal system would require massive public debate and a popular vote on the necessary changes to the constitution and its subsequent amendment.
In the UK we are not necessarily told about changes which have wide ranging effects on personal liberties and duties.
There is more to democracy than returning a majority to the House of Commons every four or five years. There is empowerment of the citizen, protection for the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Because something is popular, it is not necessarily right. So there must be limits on what can be done in the name of "popularism." There are none.
A brief summary of the problem.
The Telegraph's Free Country Series.
Sleep well, Winston Smith. Airstrip One is doubleplus good.
There are reasons:
1. I don't think it's the proper forum, and
2. I suspect that my politics differ from many of my friends (both actual and virtual) potentially starting off long boring written debates where I'd rather have a lively one in a pub.
For the record, I see myself as a Liberal Democrat, but probably a little to the right of centre. Many of my friends are I think, to varying degrees, more leftward leaning. But that's fine. We all have a say, we all have an opinion and that's what it's all about.
But what I will rant about, is constitutional politics. The framework under which our supposed democracy operates.
The constitution (gloriously unwritten)provides for checks and balances on the power of individual political parties and on the differing sections of the Establishment. Except that to an increasing degree, it doesn't.
Today in The Times there is an article on the Blair Government's supposed reforms to the British legal system.
I doubt that there are many people who would dispute that the legal system needs reform. But is Tony Blair reforming or grabbing power? There is shortly to be a consultation paper on sweeping changes it has already announced.
Consultations usually take place before firm policy is made. Now we are effectively told ahead of time what is likely to happen to us. The decisions have been taken, the major policy direction decided. Changes on account of the consultation results will be minor and presentational.
As a citizen, you have no say.
Times Article (link seems to be broken, but may get fixed).
The changes included in the recent Criminal Justice Bill were unheralded, reversed government policy and were not announced to Parliament.
The Home Secretary has loudly and openly criticised a judiciary who decide cases against him, and makes no bones about his contempt for woolly-thinking liberal-minded lawyers. More recently, the Criminal Justice Bill (not yet an Act) introduces measures to limit the power of judges in determining sentences.
Effectively we are seeing the rape of the independent judiciary, and the politicisation of the law. Politicians should not be involved in the application of the law. They are too open to knee-jerk, public opinion oriented, vote-winning decisions. And justice is not necessarily the same thing.
It is the nature of governments (of any political stripe)to try and grab power and reduce liberties.
In the UK we have a surprisingly parochial and unsophisticated electorate which allows them to do so. In many countries, fundamental reform issues such as the House of Lords and the entire legal system would require massive public debate and a popular vote on the necessary changes to the constitution and its subsequent amendment.
In the UK we are not necessarily told about changes which have wide ranging effects on personal liberties and duties.
There is more to democracy than returning a majority to the House of Commons every four or five years. There is empowerment of the citizen, protection for the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Because something is popular, it is not necessarily right. So there must be limits on what can be done in the name of "popularism." There are none.
A brief summary of the problem.
The Telegraph's Free Country Series.
Sleep well, Winston Smith. Airstrip One is doubleplus good.
no subject
*grumble*
no subject
My blood pressure isn't up to it right now.
Grumble.
no subject
Law
Re: Law
Once passed, then implementation or administration of a law should not be the plaything of someone who depends on pleasing transient and malleable popular opinion for his job. That is not democracy, it is not good administration and it will not bring about justice. It is closer to mob rule at best and totalitarianism at worst.
A politician's job, should he or she feel that the law is not doing what it was intended to do, is to amend, repeal or re-enact it through Parliamentary procedure and legislation, rather than reinterpreting it as he or she sees fit without recourse to what the law actually says.
That's why politicians should not meddle.
Re: Law
no subject
It's sick and wrong - but then I guess I kind of resigned myself to having fewer rights than in many countries - but I will still fight for them. THe difficulty I think is how to effectively protest against this (and other decisions made behind closed doors) without having to make a career out of it. I'm quite lucky really - because my MP is dead good.
It frightens me how many people are completely unaware of what is happening in government - I mean I am no expert - but at least I know that if you don't go to vote your vote does not "automatically get counted for the ruling party" - as some cab driver tried to tell me the other week...
If the government doesn't like the people why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new one? - Brecht (probly misquoted cos I am lazy and aint looked it up)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Well, it’s kind of about free speech. (Though they did let him in after all, it seems).
blow it all up and start again
I think the problem is that we end up constantly having to choose between the lesser of two evils... we constantly are required to choose between government, business or other non-democratic bodies such as the legal system or house of lords. None of them represent us, and therein lies the real problem.
I don't think that people can be heald entirely responsible for not knowing whats going on - the media obscure the facts, don't bother reporting most things, make everything official sound dull, make everything into a celebrity show. The government seem largely disinterested in helping anyone to understand what's going on.
We need some model whereby people can be represented. I suppose this is one argument for devolution - because the larger the area the greater the mass represented and therefore the more watered down the representation. Yet I don't think that is an answer in itself. The media needs to serve a public function, not a private one - but there also needs to be a process whereby opinion is turned into reality. Logical conscious opinion and debate - not the canvassing of focus group nonsense favoured by the current government.
Models other than neo-liberalism need to be discussed, but this would be part of a democratic media. (Democracy in the power of the people sense, not the current one).
At the end of the day, there needs to be a body which represents the people - which in theory should be the government, but sadly its not.
Okay, totally failed to be brief there. Bugger.