"Pray the future will never need..."

[devilgate]

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

Comments

[zotz]

As far as I can tell, the rules covering which way that clause would be interpreted are clear and simple if you understand them. I don't, but as I understand it it's not likely to be legally ambiguous.

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.

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

Fair points all, and you have obviously considered this with a clearer head than I. Do you think I should modify (or take down) my "Revolution!" post, then?

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.

[zotz]

Well, I don't like the bill, and in particular the fact that its scope is so wide is very unwise. Listing bills as constitutional might work, but arguably they've already tried with the bar on removing "essential safeguards". That dumps it into the judiciary's hands, and while it's a damn sight better than nothing, I don't see it as an adequate substitute for just not passing the thing.

Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.