We fought a civil war (actually a series of small civil wars) between 1639 and 1651 that culminated in the execution of the monarch and the embryo of our parliamentary democracy – although the short dictatorship that followed bore no resemblance to our current legislature. The Financial Times refers to these events when it reflects on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (otherwise known as the abolition of parliament bill) currently passing through parliament:
The British constitutional balance – including the interaction of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive – is revered and imitated around the world. That may not be so for much longer if the parliament of 2006 enacts the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, shortly to pass the House of Commons and go to the House of Lords.
If this bill passes, everything parliament fought for during the 1600s will be thrown away and the divine right of kings will be restored – only it won’t be the monarch who will benefit, it will be our lord and master, saint Tone of Blair – who, despite promising to go, can’t quite manage to break the ties with power. Perhaps we will get to enjoy Enoch Powell’s prophecy that “all political careers end in failure” come to pass. If I get the popcorn, you get the beers.
Despite the relatively low key media coverage, it would seem; according to the Financial Times; that the government has been stung sufficiently by accusations of totalitarianism (rightly so) to backtrack.
Jim Murphy, the cabinet office minister, said the government would back down from the highly contentious plans to cut the bureaucracy burden on business and amend the proposed law, which has been dubbed a shortcut to dictatorship.
Well, there’s a turn up – I didn’t expect that. Given the obstinacy in the face of opposition to the ID Cards Bill (now the egregious ID Cards Act 2006), I expected them to dig in for the long haul. An about face, I didn’t expect. Or is this just some cunning trick to unsettle their opponents?
The government is “still discussing the shape” of the amendments, which could take some months to finalise, Mr Murphy said. He denied that the move was a U-turn, saying: “It’s the same policy but with reassurance being given to those who have concerns.”
You see? They are not engaging in a U-turn, that would be an embarrassing climb-down and unless you are Jacques Chirac, that just wouldn’t do… All of which, roughly translated, means that we should keep a close eye on these mendacious rapscallions, watching closely for any sleight of hand.
Spyblog asks the following pertinent question while discussing this same article:
Who were the idiots who introduced the “2001 Regulatory Reform Act” which is apparently working so badly ? That would be the same NuLabour government which has failed to allow proper detailed Public Consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny on so many of its Bills.
Indeed. Why is it that politicians can make such a horrendous incompetent mess of their jobs and just carry on as if nothing has happened? The rest of us have to face the consequences of our errors. :dry:
And, Spyblog is similarly sceptical about the U-Turn “discussion of the shape of the amendments”
There has been so much spin and media manipulation from this Government, that we will believe it only when we see the text of the safeguards written into the text of the Bill.
It says something about the state of our legislature and politicians generally that even when they apparently listen and respond, we still remain suspicious of their words and motives.
In summation, Spyblog’s article ponders the effect of the blogosphere on all of this. I have to say, I didn’t think we were that influential as a medium, but if the vociferous mauling in the blogosphere really has caused this volte-face, then it has served a useful purpose. I prefer to reserve judgement at this stage, though.
Now playing: Queen – 12 – She Makes Me (Stormtrooper In Stilettos)
[Update] More discussion on this over at Chicken Yogurt.