![[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
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