So, What have labour done for us?

#1
There have been a number of threads on topics relating to the laws labour has brought in which erode civil liberties, endanger democracy and generally treat the UK population with contempt.

I feel it would be useful to have a 'quick guide' to this.

To Start.

The highlights from yesterdays 'anti terror' bill.

1. 42 day internment for those whom the government claim are terrorists.
2. End of open inquests. The government can now hold these behind closed doors, for whatever reason they like.
3. The coroner who runs an inquest can be nominated by the government, giving them the power to put puppets in place.

Other items,

Routine monitoring of banking transactions - everyone’s, without any requirement for suspicion of criminal activity (if you take £1000 cash out of a personal account, you are required to explain what it will be used for).
Making every tiny transgression of ‘the rules’ immediately punishably by fines. (dropping an apple core)
Allowing the situation where a member of the public can be coerced into admitting they have committed a crime, when they haven’t been informed that that means accepting a criminal record. (on the spot fines)
Allowing surveillance of members of the public without need for suspicion of criminal activity or a court order.
Taking and DNA from suspects and not deleting the record if the individual is found innocent or not even charged with an offence!
Selling of private information belonging to citizens for profit. (dvla)
Taking political control of police, thereby making them agents of the state, rather than solely responsible to the public.
The ID card scheme – don’t get me started on that one!!!!!!


Any more?

It would be good to list up the specific pieces of legislation which allow these items, if someone knows them.

Ski.
 
#3
insert-coin-here said:
Lets not forget hate crimes....or the curtailing of the right to peacefull protest
I forgot that one. you now have to ask the state for permission to protest! one of my 'pet hates'

Ski.
 

LancePrivateJones

MIA
Book Reviewer
#6
Sven said:
LancePrivateJones said:
Or the Liberal use of the Parliament act to push through legislation without voting.
How many times has it been used, Lance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act

I believe it was also used in about 2004 in relation to the Diego Garcia saga.I think that one is subject to appeal by the Government after the courts threw it out.
 
#7
You might want to read this Sven

http://www.owos.info/legislative_regulatory_reform_bill.php


Including this extract from.....


....The Liberal Democrats views on the LRR Bill

"The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming."
 
#8
Sven said:
LancePrivateJones said:
Or the Liberal use of the Parliament act to push through legislation without voting.
How many times has it been used, Lance?
As I'm in an arguementative mood today I thought I'd join in.

the 1949 amended act has been used 4 times in total.

Once by the conservatives, 3 times by Labour.

the original 1911 act has been used 3 times, twice by the liberals and once by labour (to infact force the 1949 amendment through).

Considering the number of times it has been used since 1911...7 in total, then 3 occuring in the last 9 years seems quite 'liberal' in use. Especially when you consider the bills they were used on.

Liberal bills:

Minor change to the Church of England
Ireland Home rule - actually didn't become reality.

Conservative:

War crimes act 1991 - closed a legal loophole for war criminals of WWII

Labour:

1949 Ammendment - basically strengthened the act by brute force.
European Parliment Elections - Proportional rep in European votes.
Sex offences Act 2000 - lowered the age of consent for Gay men.
Hunting Act 2004 - stopped hutning with dogs...well sort of.

So to sum it up.

Liberals introduced it but didn't really do much with it.
Conservatives used it to catch and try War criminals
Labour has used it to give them selves more power and impose thier moral code on others.

Hmmmm.

S_R

p.s. yes deliberatly inflamatory response but I'm in the mood.
 

LancePrivateJones

MIA
Book Reviewer
#9
LancePrivateJones said:
Sven said:
LancePrivateJones said:
Or the Liberal use of the Parliament act to push through legislation without voting.
How many times has it been used, Lance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act

I believe it was also used in about 2004 in relation to the Diego Garcia saga.I think that one is subject to appeal by the Government after the courts threw it out.
Re:Diego Garcia.
Here it is.The story is about three quarters way down in the 'recent developments' section.
http://domain1164221.sites.fasthosts.com/background.htm

That makes four times by the present Government.
 
#10
Murphy_Slaw said:
You might want to read this Sven

http://www.owos.info/legislative_regulatory_reform_bill.php


Including this extract from.....


....The Liberal Democrats views on the LRR Bill

"The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming."
Quite
 
#11
Well, in my view, they have made life a hell of a lot more difficult for the majority of us. :twisted:

Get the tories back, atleast we knew where we (HM Forces) stood. :!:
 
#12
Sven said:
Murphy_Slaw said:
You might want to read this Sven

http://www.owos.info/legislative_regulatory_reform_bill.php


Including this extract from.....


....The Liberal Democrats views on the LRR Bill

"The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming."
Quite
It effectively gives government the power to turn themselves into dictators.
Still, I suppose they only have our best interests at heart
 
#14
LancePrivateJones said:
LancePrivateJones said:
Sven said:
LancePrivateJones said:
Or the Liberal use of the Parliament act to push through legislation without voting.
How many times has it been used, Lance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act

I believe it was also used in about 2004 in relation to the Diego Garcia saga.I think that one is subject to appeal by the Government after the courts threw it out.
Re:Diego Garcia.
Here it is.The story is about three quarters way down in the 'recent developments' section.
http://domain1164221.sites.fasthosts.com/background.htm

That makes four times by the present Government.
Sorry,I meant 'Orders in council',not nice stuff though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_in_council
 
#16
Domovoy said:
I agree with the ban on fox hunting!
Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other but it was the inordinate amount of time wasted on the bill and the motivation behind bringing it in. There were certainly much more pressing things the Government should have been concentrating on.

The only thing they’ve banned which I’m in agreement with is the prohibition on the use of handheld mobile phones when driving.

I know I’m probably the only one but I was also against the abolishment of hereditary peers. I’d rather have overseers in the House of Lords there by an accident of birth, than the appointed cronies of the current majority political party.
 
#17
PsyWar.Org said:
I know I’m probably the only one but I was also against the abolishment of hereditary peers. I’d rather have overseers in the House of Lords there by the an accident of birth, than the appointed cronies of the current majority political party.
Actually, i also quite liked the presence of the second house full of individuals not beholden to political parties. It was a safety net, which could prevent totalitarian regimes taking over and bringing in all sorts of oppressive laws .........

Ski.

edited to add. I was talking to an american friend some years ago. he didn't understand how we could allow hereditary peers to be part o our political process. After i explained, even he seemed to think the idea had some merit, from a governmental stability POV. Its a system that worked for quite a few years before nee labour came along.
 
#19
I did think of something positive once when I was asked his question a few years back but I struggle to remember what it was now.

Basically they've destroyed my country.
 
#20
I think the answer is in the question: Labour have very definitely done for us.

Most damagingly, they've destroyed any fig-leaf of Parliamentary restraint on the Executive branch of government: quite literally, both Houses can become irrelevant to the operation of the state the instant a sitting government decides to make them so.

I hold on to the slender hope that, should they try, Brenda will discharge them Constitutional crisis or no. I have no hope whatsoever that Parliament will wake from its pork-induced coma or that the electorate will turn back the anti-democratic tide. We became an irrelevance long before the politicians did.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top