Life and the World

Liberty Central is now up and running at http://www.libertycentral.org.uk

Go register, read, contribute.

Already people are misinterpreting the proposed Liberty Central coalition as being party political. Either that or interpreting it from inside their little mental party political boxes.

No no no no no.

That is not it at all. It makes me want to scream. My own opinion is that party politics is part of the damn problem in the first place. When discussion and disagreement is seen as weakness, and whips hold all the power, then you get dogmatism and dogmatism is blind, deaf, dumb AND stupid.

I've come down a bit from my energetic high of yesterday, when it seemed as if anything could happen. Am I falling for the usual blogging world trick of thinking that enough people read (other blogs far better read than mine) and give a damn about this stuff? Well, of course I am. Sigh, sigh and tripple sigh.

I have just read this:

http://www.thelip.org/?p=129

(Via Talk Politics again)

I'm just gobsmacked.

I am not an economist, and the "restart" of this blog a month or so back was frequently about my forays into the world of free marketeerism - what it really means, what its proponents claim for it, where it does and does not work. A blank slate, as I said, and dogma free. That has been an interesting project, and is still ongoing.

I am not an economist, then, but I am a lawyer. And this much I know: the supremacy of Parliament is being used to create an over-powerful Executive. But more to the point: the supremacy of the Commons is being used. And, somewhat ironically, the Lords is attempting to put the brakes on.

One of the most prominent debates in British politics this century (no, really) has been over the status of the House of Lords. The first major constitutional crisis of the 20th century came in 1911, when the Commons and the Lords faced off against each other over the Finance Bill of that year, which introduced the first old age pensions. This morphed into the creation of the first Parliament Act, whereby the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords was made explicit.

That supremacy has been harnessed rarely, and generally backed up by the not unreasonable argument that in a democracy the will of the elected Commons should take precedence over the will of the unelected Lords. Simple, non? Simple, as long as the players played the game with honour. Because the simple fact of the matter is that the Parliament Act makes the Commons truly supreme, except as against the Crown. And the Crown plays the game with honour, usually, by not interfering and effectively delegating the Royal Prerogative to the Executive.

So in order for the game not to fall apart, the Executive has to play with honour by not taking advantage of the fact that it will, generally, be the same people as the Commons, which is supreme over the Lords. And in the meantime, the Courts play the game, as ever, by relying on the Executive honourably not taking advantage of the fact that are not really independent at all.

The checks and balances of the British constitutional settlement are in people's heads and in their attitudes, not within the system itself. The system works by everyone being good chaps. British sense of fair play and all that. The edifice has not toppled, not because it is stable, but because no one has tried giving it a push.

All it really takes is for one government to start stretching the rules, for the media to take their eye off the ball and care more about soundbite than substance, for the electorate to get sick of the whole boiling, and who knows where it would end. And if all three happened at once? Oops.

I will not sit by and watch everything fall apart. I will try to play a small part as a check and a balance and I will start by trying to help the Liberty Central project that I wrote about below. So in three months time there will be an eager lawyer with time on her hands available, should anyone need me.

Maybe things won't fall apart, maybe these worries will turn out to have been overwrought and melodramatic, maybe I will read my rhetoric and sigh and smile at the hyperbole. And then I will be glad, because this much I know: I will have done something to make it so.

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, here is the text of a letter today in the Times. More than enough commentary has been written about it, and I for one think it speaks for itself:

Sir, Clause one of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 15) provides that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes — a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.”

This has been presented as a simple measure “streamlining” the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, by which, to help industry, the Government can reduce red tape by amending the Acts of Parliament that wove it. But it goes much further: if passed, the Government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.

The Bill subjects this drastic power to limits, but these are few and weak. If enacted as it stands, we believe the Bill would make it possible for the Government, by delegated legislation, to do (inter alia) the following:

create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment;
curtail or abolish jury trial;

permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest;
allow the Prime Minister to sack judges;

rewrite the law on nationality and immigration;

“reform” Magna Carta (or what remains of it).

It would, in short, create a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, made this point at the Second Reading of the Bill last week. We hope that other MPs, on all sides of the House, will recognise the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late.

PROFESSOR J. R. SPENCER, QC
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN BAKER, QC
PROFESSOR DAVID FELDMAN
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
PROFESSOR DAVID IBBETSON
PROFESSOR SIR DAVID WILLIAMS, QC
Law Faculty,
University of Cambridge

I am angry. Just "throw-the-radio-out-of-the-window-when-I-hear-Charles-Clarke" sort of angry, but angry nonetheless. Surprise surprise - I am angry with New Labour and their constant drip-drip-drip authoritariansim. I have never been a conspiracy theorist, but I am starting to get a bit scared. And anyone who thinks I shouldn't have anything to be scared about if I have nothing to hide can fuck off right now.

And I am not the only one. After my linking to Talk Politics a few days ago, Mat GB at Great Britain Not Little England has got in on the act too:

http://not-little-england.blogspot.com/2006/02/coalition-feedback-and-where-next.html#comments

A new movement for liberty? I'll be there for that. Let's see where this goes, shall we...

I point you towards Talk Politics today:

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/

Please read. This is important.

This morning I handed my notice in at work. In three and a half months' time I will be out of the door. After three years of a law degree, a year at law school, two years as a trainee and four and half (long) years as a solicitor, I am saying goodbye. What comes next is anybody's guess.

This is a big day. I can't much enjoy it because I have so much work to do. But hurrah nevertheless.

It will not surprise many people to know that I was and am agin the war in Iraq. I won't go into the reasons here, since that is not the purpose of this post.

My question to the world is: is there any way I can make my views known (marches, petitions, whatever - I'm not fussy) that does not involve the Stop the War Coalition? They were a convenient vehicle for protest two or three years ago, when things were new, immediate and heated, but I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable regarding the members of the Coalition and whom I will be perceived to be supporting should I support the same cause as them.

The Stop the War Coalition website helpfully does not seem to include a list of the actual members of the Coalition, but a look at the list if the Steering Committee does not make me confident that I am in accord with their views. I am not a socialist, nor a communist, nor do I particularly support the views of the Muslim Association of Britain. I dislike also the fact that the domination of the Stop the War Coalition allows some of those of the pro-war ilk (left and right) to paint those of the anti-war ilk as extremists.

Since I'm not about to start a whole new movement myself (too busy, too lazy, too unconnected) is there any other organisation out there to which I can add my support and also do my bit to tackle the ascendency of the Stop the War Coalition in this debate?

Went to see Munich on Saturday. Excellent film. A film that stays with you. And makes you think about important things. Puts the mundane, every day stuff in perspective. Others have probably said it better so I will leave it at that.

Rather a pity that Mark and I spoiled our contemplative mood by having a tiff about the central heating when we got home, but there you go.

Can someone tell me why "conservatives" (used not pejoratively, but as a broad-church label) support the general principle of low taxation, except for the armed forces? I mean, the armed forces are incredibly expensive. So why is spending on this one expensive thing given a free pass from the general principle? Honestly, why?

The most sense I have heard from anyone about this whole Mohammed cartoon stuff came from Stuart Lee (writer of Jerry Springer: The Opera) this morning on the Today programme. You can hear him here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

(and thanks to Thesisville for pointing out that the interview can be downloaded from the Radio 4 website).

My only comment on these cartoons is that they are crap. As in, not funny. And since that was supposedly their initial intent they've rather failed as far as I'm concerned.

People putting their shoe-clad feet up on the seats on trains. I mean, really. How incredibly rude, mucky and inconsiderate. Haven't plucked up the guts to say that to anyone yet. Some day though I will finally lose my rag...

Advertising to children. Don't even get me started. In fact, I'm think of applying to The Sharpener for a Thursday Rant slot for this one.