With allies like this…
April 3rd, 2006Sorry, I’ve been away a bit. And now I have a Bloglines inbox as long as my arm (in fact, as long as Peter Crouch’s arm). So I may just trash the week’s reading and start afresh. But here are a few incoherent, badly scrawled, thoughts on the big story of last week - the passing of the ID cards bill. We won’t get compulsive ownership of cards, but it doesn’t matter as the “compromise” still sees compulsory registration with the National Identity Register, which is the real fucking problem with the system. Thanks a fucking bunch, those members of the Lords who changed their minds and voted for this false compromise, you did your country fucking proud. Oh, and those of you who still believe that a wholly-unelected Lords is the best vanguard of democracy - fuck off, lift the wool from your eyes and realise the problems you get when you grant people power without responsibility.
Fuck, must stop swearing. Anyway, while I compose myself, make a nice cup of tea and read that leaflet on how to get an Irish passport, here are some of the best posts around: Charlie Whitaker predicts the news ahead, while Blairwatch does a quick calculation on the reliability of the system (the comments are quite good too). Longrider highlights what a total little shite Andy Burnham is, as does Flashboy.
One post that caught my attention especially was Justin, who chillingly points out that our remaining biggest ally is incompetence. And although I can see the point - we are better off that the entire system crashes and burns as quickly as possible, rather it be a long, drawn-out and expensive slow drain on the country - I still don’t like it. Actually, I should prefer the former for entirely selfish reasons - as long as the system goes tits-up before November 2013, then I don’t have to renew my passport and enroll on the stupid register. But it’s like being given the choice between frying pan and fire - either way, a lot of people are going to get stiffed over. And you’re going to be the one who foots the bill. Not really much of an ally, is it?
April 4th, 2006 at 09:54:10
“Oh, and those of you who still believe that a wholly-unelected Lords is the best vanguard of democracy - fuck off, lift the wool from your eyes and realise the problems you get when you grant people power without responsibility.”
I assume that is directed at a wholly-appointed-just-like-now argument… and wasn’t the problem here that it was the ignoble knaves appointed by, and owing a lot to, the political parties? Why would an elected bunch (bearing in mind that elections means parties and they’d be the same parties that we have at the mo) have acted so very differently, in the interests of the country and not to keep the whips happy?
The Power of the Commons should be used with a responsibility to the people (and not a potentate under First-Past-the-Post who can land one a safe seat); the Power of the Lords should be used with a responsibility to the good of the country and not the inherently unknowing whims of the populace or the whips.
That we don’t have the first and only have an anaemic approximation (with potential for it to get worse) to the second is a bit of a shame.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:07:38
I don’t think the Lords should become a clone of the Commons, which I have made clear in my views on Lords reform here and here; I favour a significant minority of crossbench appointees (30%, which is slightly more than now), and the rest elected by PR. Based upon the 36% vote for Labour in the last election, that would mean only 25% of the Lords would be Labour politicians. Even if they all followed the party whip, it still puts them nowhere near a majority.
April 10th, 2006 at 13:15:50
Chris and Paul,
I find the idea of appointing legislators to be rather troubling, whether they sit with elected colleagues, or not. To me, there must be a democratic link between *all* legislators and the citizens for whom they pass laws.
What do you think of a half-way house in which voters can choose to vote for a list of the experienced/eminent/etc compiled by an “Appointments Commission”? That commission would be charged only with producing a list of candidates with suitable qualifications. The degree to which this list is electorally successful should not be relevant. People could then vote for appointment, in some sense. A variation would assign all abstentions to the commission’s list.
I mused on this a few months ago @ http://tim.hicks.me.uk/blog/archive/2005/08/19/elect-the-lords-but-with-appointments.