Marcel Berlins, who writes in the Guardian, is an acknowledged authority on legal matters, a well-known author, and a pretty bright bloke.*
So when he tells us there's a problem with some new legislation, we really ought to take notice. Trouble is, it seems he's the only one who's noticed the fast one Tony Bliar is pulling with the new Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
One leading academic calls it the "abolition of parliament bill". On the face of it, it's a boring bit of parliamentary gobbledook to tie up a few loose ends and make government work more effectively.
But it will make it possible for the government, by ministerial order and without any debate in parliament, to create new criminal offences punishable with up to two years imprisonment. It could also, according to Cambridge law professor John Spencer, introduce house-arrest, give the police stronger powers of arrest and interrogation, set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges.
In effect, it largely bypasses the elected parliament and gives the government of the day the power to govern without recourse to democratic procedures. And of course the Labour majority in parliament, slim though it is, will as usual troop into the voting lobby and support their revered leader without question. What a bunch of sheep! Don't these MPs have minds of their own? I think we should start calling them "New La-ba-a-ah"!
"Oh, it's all right", they'll say, "just because the Act gives the government the power to make these changes to the law without asking parliament, it doesn't mean that they're going to actually do it".
But Captain Grumpy is older and wiser. He knows no government would pass a law it didn't intend to use, so if they're not going to use it why are they introducing it? And even if we had a change of government (oh, I wish, I wish!) no government is going willingly to throw away the opportunity to exercise as much power as possible - that just wouldn't be human nature.
No, once this Bill is passed, it's here to stay, and we'll have taken one more step away from the fragile (and largely illusory) flower of democracy we all foolishly cherish, and moved a little closer to that Blairish Utopia where there are no smokers, no fox-hunters, no 4x4 vehicles, no fat people, where hospitals and schools are run for profit, we're all tagged and documented and photographed and filed in computers and everyone does exactly as they're told because Nanny knows best and it's all for our own good.
Makes you pleased to be old, doesn't it? At least we'll be dead soon. That's if we're still allowed to die - after all, I imagine dying's quite bad for you ………
* Mind you, he's not perfect. He recently said in an article that he couldn't understand why motorists were whingeing about speed cameras since "it is clear that cameras will save lives".
Erm, clear to whom, exactly, Marcel?
Given that for the last ten years the number of speed cameras has multiplied by thousands of percent while the number of fatalities has scarcely budged, how is it clear?
Given that large numbers of Chief Police Officers are now disillusioned about the effectiveness of cameras (yes, really - literally dozens of them have now spoken out), how is it clear?
And given that counties that have no speed cameras last year recorded substantial drops in fatalities, while counties with lots of cameras watched fatalities rise yet again, how is it clear, Marcel?
Frankly if your grasp of statistics is as piss-poor as this, Marcel, you should stick to politics. But if you're at all interested in finding out the facts, look here.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite