Centerfield

Well, it certainly seems like it's a bad bill, and I hope it's soundly defeated. But I'm not sure that the purposes are as nefarious as the Guardian (which has very little credibility, as far as I'm concerned) describes it. It strikes me more as a well-intentioned thought being implemented in a horrible, horrible way. I know in our own laws, there's a ton of stuff put into legislation (very detailed regulatory procedures, for example) which really doesn't need to be there, it just is.

And I'm not sure about the overall regulatory structure in the U.K. In the U.S., much of the fine details of regulations on industry, for example, is done by executive agencies through rule-making authority granted by Congress. It may be that the U.K. doesn't have that, and even the finest-level details of its regulations must be approved by Parliament. Some more stream-lined process for changing those regulatory details might therefore be appropriate. (Though, again, I agree that at a glance this looks WAY overbroad.)

Finally, I have to disagree that the Slashdot discussion (frankly any Slashdot discussion) qualifies as "interesting and informative". The initial posting had a misleading and "conspiracy-theorish" reference to the "Parliament Act", implying that it was a recent Tony Blair thing rather than Acts passed in 1911 and 1949, which mostly began limiting the power of the unelected House of Lords. At least the Slashdot discussion fixed that error right away.

I think it bears noting that - while singularly bad an idea - this would scarcely represent a significant departure. In practise, a Prime Minister is the Prime Minister specifically and exclusively because s/he can command a majority in Parliament. Technically, of course, the PM is PM because the sovereign says so, but this is a formality, not a substantive restriction; likewise, technically, of course, the PM still needs Parliament's assent for their bills, but a Prime Minister unable to command the necessary votes - by virtue of the system's nature - is likely to find himself no longer Prime Minister in short order.

British political parties are much more centralized and authoritarian than American parties, and two of the last three British governments have been strongly authoritarian, and the interregnum that divided them was more of an accident than a concious choice by the electorate; the country has acquired a taste for "strong leadership" that I doubt will be displaced any time soon. The British political system is fundamentally broken, to the point that this will make scarcely a dent as far as I'm concerned.

I really think anyone who thinks the primary system hurts American politics - and really, anyone who thinks the American system isn't everythging it could be - should spend a year or three living in Britain. They will come back transformed.

Pat, if you distrust the Guardian, you might wish to consider checking out the London Times link I also provided. Oh, and the website quotes the Conservative Party's official opposition in its Opinion section.

I thought the slashdot thread was interesting because, among the ill-informed American postings, it contained a number of thoughtful well-informed British postings. My favorite was the Briton saying he was a Briton and hadn't read about it yet. The British press must've falling down on this a bit. Maybe because Blair wasn't stupid enough to put it in an easy-to-read bill.

Simon, you're right, of course, about the PM already facing fewer checks than our President or Congressional leadershp. But I can't make myself believe that, say, a bill to indefinitely postpone elections or to ban sedition, would make it through Commons. Both of those measures would be cake under this system (at least to get through the legal system; I hope enforcing them would be harder).

Another interesting bit from slashdot was a suggestion that the Scottish Parliament was making this easier because Scottish MPs are a lot less interested in non-Scottish bills.

Don't worry, Jon, my swipe at the Guardian was mostly gratuitous, not meant particularly for this story. I did read the Times article. I thought both, though, were remiss in providing any real perspective from the government. They quoted boiler-plate "we aren't going to abuse this" reassurances and said very generally that the purpose was to speed up deregulation efforts. But no examples of what problems the government really intends it to solve.

I must have missed the better comments on Slashdot.

And don't get me wrong, I agree it's a horrible bill and should never be passed. I'm just not ready to make the leap to really malicious intent by the Blair folks.

Additionally, I would note that the interval between elections is generally considered, I believe, to be part of the (unwritten) British constitution. The Law Lords could easily toss out any efforts to use the Act to make that kind of fundamental change. Violent regime change will remain unnecessary over there, I have no doubt.

It's no trouble now to figure out why he and El Shrubbo del Estupido get along so well. They both defend "freedom!" As in, they feel that they should be "free" to do as they please.

Oooh, an early morning drive-by!

Jon,
You might be interested in this link, to update the main post:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.i-ii.html

The full text of the bill! ;)

It's every bit as horrifying as you would think. "A Minister of the Crown may, by order, make provision for . . . reforming legislation . . . [Such] [a]n order [may] make provision amending, repealing or replacing any legislation . . . in any way that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace legislation so as to (a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or . . . charging fees); (b) modify the functions conferred on a person by legislation; (c) transfer, or provide for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by legislation . . . An order under §1 may . . . also make provision amending or abolishing any rule of law." And - get this! - the icing on the cake: "An order under this section may bind the Crown"!

I read this bill with mouth agape. It is breathtakingly authoritarian. Imagine a comparable grant of power here: a Constitutional amendment which declared that "By Executive Order, the President, or the principal Officer in each of the Executive departments, may amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act of Congress might. Such an order may confer, modify or transfer the duties required of any person and may amend or abolish any rule or law." Is this the sort of thing that might fly here? I doubt it.

I was evidently too glib before reading the bill. This essentially transforms the British Constitution in theory into the Soviet Constitution in practise.