open Democracy News Analysis - Blair: danger to democracy, - Comments

owly on "Blair: danger to democracy"

owly — Sun, 08 May 2005 16:32:25 +0100

No. There are a number of powers which only the Sovereign can and should be allowed to exercise. The assent to bills is one, and the power to dissolve parliament is another. Unless you have forgotten there was once a case when the Sovereign agreed not to dissolve Parliament and it ended up in civil war and murder. The small points I made would make a huge difference. And if you are all in favour of decentralizing power you will be a rabid opponent of the EU Constitution.

RhodGates on "Blair: danger to democracy"

RhodGates — Thu, 05 May 2005 03:29:55 +0100

Why centralise authority even more? Why not transfer all Royal Perogatives(currently excercised by the PM!)to the House of Commons? Power should be de-centralised, not centralise it more.

owly on "Blair: danger to democracy"

owly — Wed, 04 May 2005 15:17:32 +0100

No. You take powers away from the Prime Minister and return them to the Crown to exercise in the Privy Council. For example all appointments would be a matter for the Crown in Council and that would starve the Prime Minister of his powers of patronage. In other words there would be a small executive Privy Council. The office of Prime Minister did not officially exist until 1917, rather the office derives its power from the office of the Lord High Treasurer which was put into 'commission', hence the other title of First Lord of the Treasury. That office gained much of its power under Queen Elizabeth when held by Lord Burghley, who had also held the office of Secretary of State (the modern Home and Foreign Secretaries before the office was split 200+ years ago).

RhodGates on "Blair: danger to democracy"

RhodGates — Wed, 04 May 2005 01:06:36 +0100

"strong crown" The Prime Minister excercises the power of the crown. So increasing the powers of the monarch increases the powers of the PM.

owly on "Blair: danger to democracy"

owly — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:00:18 +0100

The problem is you get 'the tyranny of the majority', and that is really what the hunting thing is all about. It is also a bit of 'class warfare' - revenge for the miners etc. It has nothing to do with animal welfare - as if a single fox is going to be saved. Far from it. Actually they will probably die worse deaths than at the hands of the hunt. I also find risible the idea this is democracy at work. That word is wheeled out when it suits - one notes it does not apply to capital punishment which the public would never have abolished. Interestingly enough the Lords rejected a bill to abolish hanging and showed themselves to be far more intune with public opinion than the Commons. In hunting they also have the public mood. I am a great believer in a strong House of Lords and also a strong Crown. Prime Minister's have too much power and the House of Commons has amply shown over the last 7 years it has no interest in being a break or a check on an overmighty executive. The quality of MP's is also rather shocking. My MP has never even had a job other than politics. What the hell does he know even about life, he ought to get one first before starting to meddle in all our lives. The Home Secretary is, I agree, rather authoritarian - Michael Howard is quite liberal by comparison - but I do think we need to be clear and focused in our policies. I really dislike the fact that foreign citizens languish in Belmarsh Prison without charge or trial, but their presence here is unacceptable too. Something has to give, so which is it ? The Human Rights Act (or interpretation thereof) or the safety of the public ? I have some sympathy for him.

Capfka on "Blair: danger to democracy"

Capfka — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:58:52 +0100

... but I agree with you about the House of Lords, Owly. By and large, over the years, they have been a force for balance, blocking repressive or too liberal legislation and forcing the Commons to rethink (or to think at all, iin some cases). There are none so blind as those who will not see, and the current Home Secretary is blinder than most, and not because his eyes won't work. He reacts to events viscerally, letting his guts do the thinking for his head. The legislation which comes out of his office is usually fatally flawed. The existence of the House of Lords is just about the only brake there is on his woolly-minded, illiberal, mean-spirited legislative sallies. Not that he has this on his own in the current government. The amount of national time and money expended on trying to ban hunting has stunned me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why our Tones is so determined to punish Conservative supporters (which most of the pro-hunting fraternity are, I believe). It's much more than a town/country division, it's as if Labour is trying to say "you oppose us, so we will punish you in an incredibly petty way". To hear them talk about it, you'd think that the hunters were out there everyday with belt-fed machineguns mowing down anything that wasn't domesticated, rather than going out at on winter weekends and more often than not, not killing anything. I'm not a hunter and neither do I aspire to be one. But, come on, what the hell have they done to deserve this level of persecution?

owly on "Blair: danger to democracy"

owly — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:39:40 +0100

There is already a thread on Impeaching Blair (started by me) to be found in the democracy & power section under the sub heading think tanks, power etc. You will find that there has been little comment upon it. I suppose it isn't anti-American, so who gives a toss ! I do think Blair in his arrogant treatment of Parliament and all the other branches of the State has been a total disaster. We need to repeal the Parliament Acts, reform the House of Lords (giving it back its full powers), strengthen the Privy Council by giving it back some of its old duties and generally cut the office of Prime Minister down to size. Alas it wont ever happen. Nice idea though.

Blair: danger to democracy,

dan@danplesch.net — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:45:30 +0100

In response to 'One nation under Blair' at http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-28-2131.jsp Anthony and David seem to be in agreement that Blair has damaged both his own standing and the state of our democracy by his misleading conduct over the war with Iraq. However they seem to fail to grasp the extent of the crisis in the constitution and the sense 'that we no longer have a democracy' that pervades middle Britain. We all know that our constitution evolves by precedent and if Blair's conduct is allowed to stand, then it will have become constitutionally acceptable. In January, and ten years ago after the Scott report, I wrote that impeachment still exists in the UK and that it should be revived, as the great legal historian William Holdsworth recommended in the early twentieth century. Read the rest of this post...