The politicos in the UK have been banging on about teh voters apathy at election time, perhaps they should look to themselves as for the reason. After plundering the pensions of millions of people, they voted themselves a cast iron pension scheme of their own.
Now this...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The House of Commons could have found many useful things to do yesterday afternoon, but voting to exempt itself from the law on freedom of information was not one of them. By 96 to 25, with the collusion of the frontbenches of both main parties, MPs backed a private member's bill excusing parliament from a duty that it has imposed on every other public body in England and Wales. The grounds for doing so were spurious, an exaggerated fear about the exposure of private correspondence that failed to disguise parliament's fundamental distaste for making its inner workings public. The smell of a private gentlemen's club, all beeswax and dusty velvet, hung over the debate, the outcome of which was about as far as it is possible to get from openness and accountability.
Article continues
Only one MP spoke in support of the bill: David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip who has pushed it through with great tactical skill. But 95 other MPs came to vote alongside him. That turnout was in itself unusual for a sunny Friday afternoon, with England well set in the Test match at Lords and constituency work awaiting members' attention at home. For many other private member's bills - say the ones on runaway children or cluster bombs which ran out of time yesterday - a handful of MPs would have attended. Only the indulgence of protecting their own interests kept the numbers up. A small band of critics, from all sides but led by the Liberal Democrats, won the debate but was outgunned in the lobbies.
The practical effect of the bill is uncertain. Given a Commons third reading yesterday, it may sink in the Lords. If it does become law, some of the benefits of the Freedom of Information Act will continue. The Speaker has promised that MPs' expenses will still be published. But only in summary, not in detail, as they are by the Scottish parliament, and only for now. A future Speaker, elected by MPs, could stop the practice. Mr Maclean, in his loud speech, argued yesterday that he had the public's interests at heart. His fear, he said, was that private letters to MPs might end up being released to the public if they were passed on to public bodies. But there is already legal protection in this area. At most, it needs clarifying and enforcing. No one could produce examples of real difficulties yesterday. If the current act is flawed then the flaw runs more widely than parliament and so should the correction. A sweeping exemption from all areas of the act for parliament alone is undeserved.
Gordon Brown talked encouragingly this week about openness and parliamentary accountability. If he means it, he should make it known that he does not want to see Mr Maclean's unfortunate bill become law.
MPs took a big step towards shielding themselves from freedom of information requests yesterday as a move to exempt Parliament from disclosure laws cleared the Commons at the second attempt.
Legislation to remove MPs and peers from the legal duty to release information on request now passes to the House of Lords, where it will be the subject of a presummer battle.
With signs of tacit support from the Government and Conservative front bench, it will need an alliance of Liberal Democrats, crossbenchers and backbench Labour and Tory peers to stop it.
Right-to-know campaigners reacted with dismay after the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, which was presumed doomed after a handful of MPs talked it out in the Commons last month, was forced through by MPs after a classic parliamentary duel.
Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, afterwards accused MPs of giving themselves protection they denied to those they represented and accused Ministers of secretly colluding with its Tory sponsor to let it pass.
“I cannot believe that a Government that is serious about freedom of information would have allowed that to happen,” Mr Frankel told The Times.
It follows moves by ministers to restrict the use of freedom of information powers by limiting the requests campaign groups and journalists may submit in order to curb administrative costs, although there have since been signs of a rethink.
During an ill-tempered debate of four and a half hours, with opponents and supporters using arcane procedural tricks to delay its progress or hasten its passage, its backers faced accusations of using a pretext to put themselves above the law.
David Maclean, the former Conservative Chief Whip who introduced the measure as a Private Member’s Bill, argued that it would prevent MPs’ letters raising confidential concerns of constituents being released by councils, health trusts or other public bodies. Mr Maclean, a member of the Commission that runs the House of Commons, said there were cases of this happening, even though officials should not release such information without consent.
Critics said that data protection legislation should already prevent such incidents, urging better enforcement, and that there was a hidden agenda to exempt Parliament from releasing other information such as MPs’ expenses. MPs have been forced into disclosing details of how much they claim on taxis, trains, flights and other transport after the previous practice of publishing a single figure for each MP’s travel expenses was challenged using freedom of information powers.
Mr Maclean pointed out that the Speaker, Michael Martin, had pledged to continue publishing details of MPs’ expenses. But opponents, led by the Labour MP Mark Fisher, said that such a voluntary offer did not carry the force of law. “People will be aghast and horrified and totally contemptuous of Parliament that we could place ourselves above the law in this country,” Mr Fisher said. “We are going to bring this House into derision, contempt and discredit with this Bill.”
Unusually for a Friday, when typically a small number of MPs debate backbench Bills, 144 took part in the first of a series of votes, many of them government supporters. A group of Lib Dems tried to delay the debate by presenting armfuls of petitions, followed by speeches, but were soon stopped. The motion was carried by 113 votes to 27. During the debate Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said the Government was neutral and did not vote herself.
Staying hidden
— Incidents of internal security lapses with contractors or protesters in Parliament
— Cases of unauthorised access to MPs or ministers’ offices in Commons
— Discoveries or reports of safety shortcomings in the parliamentary estate
— Wasteful spending on construction projects in the Commons or Lords
— Extragavant use of public funds for hospitality, lavish wallpaper or similar
The self-serving, mendacious, duplicitous bunch of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Except they won't be. :shame:
05-19-2007, 13:22
Hosakawa Tito
Re: Another reason not to vote.
This sounds soooo familiar on a State and Federal level...
Politicians and shame does not compute. Where as you or I would have to remove all the mirrors from our house to begin to deal with this...shameless is a job requirement for most politicos.
05-19-2007, 20:35
ShadeHonestus
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
...shameless is a job requirement for most politicos.
I believe they have a secret ceremony when you have to check in your shame and integrity. Sometimes they give you a race card, but there's criteria.
05-20-2007, 09:16
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Once again, it looks like you're going to have to rely on the Lords to toss this bill right back.
The real trouble is that politicians know they can get away with this because nobody really cares. Unless the news was tattooed across the assets of the Page 3 girl, most voters will skip right past this to the FA Cup report.
05-20-2007, 09:48
CountArach
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Horrible, horrible law...
05-20-2007, 10:21
InsaneApache
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Once again, it looks like you're going to have to rely on the Lords to toss this bill right back.
The real trouble is that politicians know they can get away with this because nobody really cares. Unless the news was tattooed across the assets of the Page 3 girl, most voters will skip right past this to the FA Cup report.
Strange isn't it that 'career' politicians are reforming this quaint establishment. Still. as they say, if you've got nothing to hide, what are you afeared of? :wall:
I notice Gordon 'gottapickapocketortwo' Brown did his Macavity act and kept his head down, just a day after promising to restore openness and acountability to government. A worthy successor to Blair. :dizzy2:
Well, well, well, the plot thickens.
Quote:
The Conservative MP behind moves to exempt MPs from freedom of information legislation bought a £3,300 quad bike on parliamentary expenses.
Obviously a coincidence, :laugh4: I'm just surprised he couldn't find a train that ran on gravy. :laugh4:
EDIT: for new link.
05-20-2007, 21:36
Bijo
AW: Another reason not to vote.
Voting? What's that?
05-20-2007, 23:11
Incongruous
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Yet another reason to reform Westminster and get a damned constitution (proper one!)
05-20-2007, 23:23
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: Another reason not to vote.
I say revoke the parliament act and every law since WWII.
It's just been down hill for the last 60 years really. Although you can't blame the politicians alone. How can you be enthusiastic about a country which once ruled over a quater of the globe whos' wealth and military might made it feared and respected the world over but which can now no longer even manage to define it's own culture.
Britain is dieing and I can't really blame those who want to make some money before we slide down the plug hole.
The problem I have is working out how to stop us sliding down that dank drain pipe known as oblivion.
05-21-2007, 00:57
Papewaio
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Surely the problem is partially attributed to voter apathy and essentially getting what you pay for as a buyer. If the public don't care and don't participate then they get what they deserve. The mob is just interested in bread curry and circuses football.
The problem will be exacerbated by not voting and/or having uninformed voters voting for more infotainment.
05-21-2007, 01:59
AntiochusIII
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
curry
Sushi.
And you're quite right, by the way. It's another reason to vote, not to not to vote and end up inconsequential.
05-21-2007, 02:19
Reverend Joe
Re: Another reason not to vote.
It's time for a revolution, a real, violent, bloody revolution, in more country than one.
05-21-2007, 02:22
AntiochusIII
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
It's time for a revolution, a real, violent, bloody revolution, in more country than one.
I assure you, after the exhilaration of Change and Rebirth and the camaraderie of Revolution dies off, it'll go back to the same, or worse, with only corpses to attest to the Cause.
We're better off voting, complaining, getting disillusioned and all that joy as life passes us by.
05-21-2007, 09:58
caravel
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Once again, it looks like you're going to have to rely on the Lords to toss this bill right back.
The real trouble is that politicians know they can get away with this because nobody really cares. Unless the news was tattooed across the assets of the Page 3 girl, most voters will skip right past this to the FA Cup report.
Yes, sadly your words are all too true. The majority are probably more interested in the latest Eastenders or Coronation St sensationalist storyline than Brown succeeding Blair. Due to this ignorance Labour can basically get away with murder in today's political climate so long as they don't hit big business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I say revoke the parliament act and every law since WWII.
It's just been down hill for the last 60 years really. Although you can't blame the politicians alone. How can you be enthusiastic about a country which once ruled over a quater of the globe whos' wealth and military might made it feared and respected the world over but which can now no longer even manage to define it's own culture.
Britain is dieing and I can't really blame those who want to make some money before we slide down the plug hole.
The problem I have is working out how to stop us sliding down that dank drain pipe known as oblivion.
I agree. The British have no national pride, because they no longer have any culture. This has been long since sterilised and neutralised out of existence.
The tiny bit of nationalistic pride that remains surfaces during international sporting events, mainly football, and that's it really. The problem is that for the last few decades we've had nothing but nonsense spouted from the politically correct dept, about just how evil, ignorant and racist the white working class are and how sorry they should be for how they have treated others in the past. National or cultural pride has been portrayed as synonymous with racism and Nazism - so it's just not in fashion and very vulgar, but only in Britain - other countries' nationalism is perfectly acceptable - even to the British - and they don't get their flags taken down by the local coppers. During all of this the country has been rapidly sliding into the abyss of excessive bureaucracy, and social, cultural and industrial disaster. I have never seen such joblessness, crime, vice and poverty.
Wherever you go in the world there are religious, cultural or national days, ceremonies, festivals processions etc. The most notable in England are minority events, not English at all. St George's Day is a non entity that the do-gooders have tried their damnedest to ban altogether in case it upsets Muslims, despite the fact that I've never met a Muslim yet that is upset by St Georges Day celebrations or would be upset by them if they were held.
The populace no longer care, because there is nothing to care about - hence voter apathy. This is why Blair and his clowns have been able to royally ____ up the country since '97 and his predecessors were able to do the same thing before that. They have a free ride at our expense and are loving every minute of it.
05-21-2007, 12:00
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
YThe populace no longer care, because there is nothing to care about - hence voter apathy. This is why Blair and his clowns have been able to royally ____ up the country since '97 and his predecessors were able to do the same thing before that. They have a free ride at our expense and are loving every minute of it.
I should modify my own rather gloomy analysis to add that the real problem for the UK is the lack of a decent opposition. The effect was first seen when Mrs Thatcher came to power and the Labour party imploded into its own navel. Because there was little fear of an erudite and principled opposition forcing the executive to think on its feet, the Tory government was able to get away with some pretty serious transgressions.
Having said that, the Thatcher years were also characterised by a diverse and independent press, at least some of which was left-wing. Her own party contained some brilliant thinkers and rebels, and there were outstanding constituency MPs dedicated to their own voters more than the party. It wasn't wall-to-wall lawyers noted only for careerism and mediocrity. The House of Lords was, despite domination by apparent shire conservatives, populated by largely hereditary peers not beholden to patronage by cheque book - and actually, being old-school Tories, quite antithetical to the middle class populist conservatism that Maggie pushed.
The poll-tax was oveturned by popular uprising allied to these dissenting voices, for example.
In Blair's Britain, a million people turning out to oppose the war or the fox-hunting bill were shrugged away because they had no representatives - government or opposition benches, to challenge on their behalf. The Conservative Party is still dead in the water as an opposition and often as complicit as the New Labour backbenchers in looking first to career and perks - it's a conservative that proposed and steered through this appalling bill, for example, and Cameron has done nothing to distance himself, let alone oppose.
The intellectual quality of MPs is at an all time low - can anyone name the modern equivalents of the St John Stevases or Enoch Powells, or Wedgie Benns? The Lords is full of pay-as-you-go careerists who either failed as full-time politicians or got on telly a lot, balanced by walking cheque books. The Opposition, like the government, is concerned only with gaining power, not the principles upon which why they want that power.
In common with many democracies, the so-called "elite" (more properly termed the meritocratic mediocrities) have consorted to disenfranchise the electorate by making politics so irrelevant and boring that most people can't be bothered. Even if they are so motivated, the politicians can't bring themselves to support popular challenges in case the power really does revert to the people.
Somehow, you need to get a real opposition. How the "natural party of government" has got itself into this mess escapes me - well, it doesn't really, they continually guaranteed themselves oblivion by refusing to elect Ken Clarke as leader because he had a life and was fond of Frenchies.
05-21-2007, 12:27
InsaneApache
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Nice observation BQ, I agree with most of what you said. Since New Labour moved to the centre/right/left there has not been so much as a cigarette paper you could put between the main two parties.
I remember as a teenager arguing in the pub with some of my mates about the Tories and Labour. In those days there was a sizable gap in their political credo.
The choice back then was 'Iron' Maggie or 'Sunny' Jim. After the disastrous economic policies of the Wilson regime and the not-so-enlightened income and prices policy, I knew which one I was going to vote for. (I was laid off 3 times in 1978/9).
One thing though. Ken Clarke was too much a eurosweetie for my tastes. I think the Tories missed a trick with Portillo.
05-21-2007, 12:40
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
One thing though. Ken Clarke was too much a eurosweetie for my tastes. I think the Tories missed a trick with Portillo.
Therein lies the tragedy of Mr Clarke and the Tory party. Europe was never going to go away, but if they were in power they might have made the European Onion more in the image of a conservative vision than the federalist one. Out of power they can do nothing - about anything. The Onion was always a red herring to a bull.
But I agree with you about Portillo. He could have worked wonders, and had a brain - now devoted to TV and Classic FM rather than the good of the country. Sadly, he was subject to the other prejudice that plagues the Conservative Party.
05-21-2007, 16:52
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Portillo only looked good once he got off the front benches, I agree though. Put him in charge and I'll join the Conservative party, not just vote for them.
The thing with Ken Clarke was always going to be Europe, if he could have kept it lower on the agenda maybe he would have got away with it. Sadly it was not to be.
I had hoped Cameron was going to be better, a lot of fuss has been made over him being a "Toff" well at least he's not a working class man, i.e. a real Conservative Blair. His refusal to make too many promises did give me some hope as it meant he hadn't over compromised himself. Then the Darfur thing came to light and most of that hope died.
I'm holding out for Boris though.
05-21-2007, 18:57
InsaneApache
Re: Another reason not to vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm holding out for Boris though.
Ahh...the politician who revels in upsetting the chattering classes.
