TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 02:19 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Nick Clegg promises 'biggest shakeup of our democracy since 1832'

Nick Clegg promises 'biggest shakeup of our democracy since 1832'

Deputy PM says reforms, which include ditching the national ID card scheme and biometric passports, are the most significant in 178 years


* Staff and agencies
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 May 2010 12.56 BST


Nick Clegg today promised a move away from "obsessive lawmaking" as part of a wide-ranging shakeup of the political system that included a commitment to an elected House of Lords and a referendum on the voting system.

The deputy prime minister said Britain had become, on some measures, "the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta".

He also attacked critics of the government's plans to require that any attempt by MPs to force an election be backed by 55% of the House of Commons.

In a speech to students in north London today, Clegg said the reform programme, which includes ditching the national identity card scheme and biometric passports, was the most significant in 178 years.

"I'm talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th century. The biggest shakeup of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes."

Clegg said he regarded the measures as so important that he was taking personal responsibility for implementing them, and promised the new government would not be "insecure about relinquishing control".

He pledged to abolish the Contact Point children's database, ensure CCTV was "properly regulated" and place restrictions on DNA storage.

The previous government was guilty of "obsessive lawmaking" and Clegg promised to repeal unnecessary laws and "introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences".

Clegg used his speech to respond to critics of the new government's plans to make it harder for MPs to force out the government if it is defeated on a vote of confidence. A proposed requirement for a 55% majority of MPs to agree to a dissolution of parliament before the end of its five-year term would help ensure stability, he said.

"That is a much lower threshold than the two-thirds required in Scottish parliament but it strikes the right balance for our parliament, maintaining stability, stopping parties from forcing a dissolution to serve their own interest," he said.

He criticised Labour former ministers such as Jack Straw and David Blunkett who have attacked the plan – but his comments also risk antagonising Conservative MPs who have voiced opposition.

"This last week, former Labour ministers who were once perfectly happy to ride roughshod over the rights of parliament are now declaring that this is somehow an innovation which is a constitutional outrage. They are completely missing the point.

"This is a new right for parliament, additional to the existing powers of no confidence. We are not taking away parliament's right to throw out government. We are taking away government's right to throw out parliament."

On the anti-terrorism laws, he said that new safeguards were needed to prevent their misuse.

"There have been too many cases of individuals denied their rights and whole communities being placed under suspicion. This government will do better by British justice, respecting great British freedoms," he said.

Clegg said he was not offering incremental change but a wholesale, big-bang approach to political reform.

He risked angering some Tories when he said in an interview with the Times that the coalition would aim to make taxes fairer, rather than reduce the overall tax burden. Clegg was asked if he expected the government would reduce the overall tax burden. He replied: "No, I am saying we'll rebalance the tax system. We're not making great claims about the overall tax burden."

Nick Clegg promises 'biggest shakeup of our democracy since 1832' | Politics | guardian.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 02:22 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

.... but meanwhile, the police are to be much greater latitude to do what the hell they want. The Lib-Con coalition is going to be fascinating.


Theresa May tells Police Federation she will not take away their independence

New home secretary promises to be tough on crime, but also to cut red tape and 'gimmicks'

* Alan Travis
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 May 2010 13.51 BST


The new home secretary, Theresa May, today promised to be "tough on crime" but told the Police Federation annual conference that unlike her Labour predecessors she had no intention of trying to run the police herself.

She promised to scrap "hidden Whitehall targets", needless health and safety rules and red tape including stop and search forms and the endless flow of "initiatives and gimmicks" on policing that were dictated by the news cycle rather than by what worked.

May tried to reassure the rank and file police officers in Bournemouth that the government's plans for directly elected local police commissioners would not interfere with the operational independence and professional responsibility of the police.

But she said that if they were to get rid of the "central bureaucracy" then there had to be a "transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities" in return.

"These elected individuals will in no way undermine your operational independence," she told the federation. "They will let the professionals get on with it." She claimed that criticism that elected police chiefs would lead to political interference were misplaced, arguing that in fact she was freeing the force from "constant political interference by home secretaries".

She also made it clear that the election of local police commissioners would be supplemented by the publication of neighbourhood crime data, with monthly beat meetings where local policing teams would be answerable for their performance.

May confirmed that the Home Office in general and the police service in particular would have to bear their share of the coming cuts in public spending.

She announced a full review of the pay and conditions of police officers and civilian staff. But she tried to reassure the 141,000 rank and file officers by telling them that the new government would honour their three-year pay deal, agreed in 2008.

Although £500m of efficiency savings, including shared procurement, are already in the pipeline, the home secretary said further attempts would have to be made to eliminate waste in the police service.

In the more reflective opening sections of her speech, May said that she agreed with Tony Blair's dictum of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" but believed he had failed to carry it out. The government's planned reforms on schools and welfare benefits would get to grip with the causes of crime, while she intended to be "tough on crime".

"I am not interested in running the police. If I wanted to run the police I would have joined the police service, as each of you decided to do. That is not the home secretary's job," she said, adding that that was not something that her predecessor had understood.

She promised to turn back the tide of "hidden" standardised national targets, such as key performance indicators, and that there would be an end to short-term, eye-catching initiatives such as night courts, marching youths to cashpoints for on-the-spot-fines or asbos for unborn children that were designed for headlines rather than to work.

She confirmed that she intends to return charging decisions to the police for minor offences. She also wants to "untangle the knot of health and safety rules" and reduce the burden of stop-and-search procedures, including scrapping the stop form entirely.

Theresa May tells Police Federation she will not take away their independence | UK news | guardian.co.uk



YouTube- The Ruts - S.U.S
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 02:43 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
asbos for unborn children
A fetus can get an ASBO for kicking its mum in the bladder and causing her to dribble a bit of pee into her pants? This is an aspect of terrorism that had never occurred to me.

Jesus Christ! How vigilant we need to be these days.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 03:14 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
.... but meanwhile, the police are to be much greater latitude to do what the hell they want.
While you might be right, you are just anticipating... The OP says nothing of the sort.

Quote:
May tried to reassure the rank and file police officers in Bournemouth that the government's plans for directly elected local police commissioners would not interfere with the operational independence and professional responsibility of the police.
The US has a system of elected police officials. How does it work? And does it give anything except a temptation for police officers to play political games?

Barring your unrealistic "rotation program for citizens into the police force", how do you think a police department should be run?
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 03:27 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Tories speak with forked tongue. The only relevant case was one in which an ASBO was issued to the wrong house, which is bad enough and demonstrates the problem with ASBO's lower burden of proof; but no, one was not actually issued to a foetus intentionally.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 03:38 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
While you might be right, you are just anticipating... The OP says nothing of the sort.
Nope. By saying she will do away with stop and search forms, May is giving them their licence back. These were introduced after the McPherson Inquiry into policing after police mishandled the death of Stephen Lawrence, because the police were using stop and search to conduct racial harassment. Not that they did anything new, in that the police were always supposed to keep a record of their stops, but didn't.

The police have always been unhappy with the McPherson report's recomendations, and resented the restriction of their ability to bully the citizenry at will. Now they're going to get their way.

Quote:
Barring your unrealistic "rotation program for citizens into the police force", how do you think a police department should be run?
I see nothing unrealistic about it, indeed I regard it as eminently realistic, and therefore have no need to propose an alternative.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 03:49 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
I see nothing unrealistic about it, indeed I regard it as eminently realistic, and therefore have no need to propose an alternative.


Aren't you the one who just said to me a couple of weeks ago that "Big Society" was an empty shell because "local politics is boring".

If the business of setting up and running a school or even sitting on its board is too boring for most people (as it indeed is), why would running/participating into policing be less boring?

I do not find anything the least enticing about breaking up marital disputes or brawls and murder investigations, which might be fun to read about actually require either specialised skills or are boring too - canvassing, interrogating 1,253 neighbours to find a clue, maybe, possibly, probably not though...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 03:57 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
Aren't you the one who just said to me a couple of weeks ago that "Big Society" was an empty shell because "local politics is boring".
No I don't remember saying that. But I'm not talking about "politics" at all, I'm talking about involvement in living.

Quote:
I do not find anything the least enticing about breaking up marital disputes or brawls and murder investigations, which might be fun to read about actually require either specialised skills or are boring too - canvassing, interrogating 1,253 neighbours to find a clue, maybe, possibly, probably not though...
Yes I know. That's why you should do it.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 04:06 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
No I don't remember saying that. But I'm not talking about "politics" at all.
I am not sure anymore if we were discussing Big Society but i remember both of us agreeing that local politics was boring.

Quote:
I'm talking about involvement in living. Yes I know. That's why you should do it.
? Dude! If something is boring and, on top, specialised and I can avoid doing it - I am avoiding doing it.

Simple specialisation and greater use of resources for productivity gains.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 19-05-10, 04:18 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
Simple specialisation and greater use of resources for productivity gains.
Surrendering of sovereignty and control over your life and society.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 4
contracycle, Francois Cellier, Gilles de Rais, roadkill
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0