interesting bill through parliament

Former Member

claire short, who was a member who dropped out of cabinet over iraq has put through a private members bill that requires parliament to make decsion to go to war instead of prime minister only as is currently the case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4363406.stm

what do you think, itd be a triumph of democracy, but even if it went through most of tony blairs whipping boys will go with him no matter what

Former Member

It seems to be a good idea to me, the possession of what is many way the ultimate power of a nation by one man, isn't very democratic........

Teh_Gerbil

Yeah, good idea. It'll work well with our PR system, meaning Tony has the Majority anyway.

Gotta hope the Backbenchers rebel as usuall, although they stupid Conservatives like the war anyway. Idiotic bastards.

Backbenchers are our last hope!

Former Member

It will not make much difference as in the U.S., only Congress can declare war, yet Presidents are able to bypass this "air strike" and other undeclared methods of warfare.

Former Member

NeoConservative C4 wrote:

It will not make much difference as in the U.S., only Congress can declare war, yet Presidents are able to bypass this "air strike" and other undeclared methods of warfare.

Actually I belive the President can declare war of any kind and then seek approval from Congress after the fact.

But Commons Leader Geoff Hoon kept speaking long enough to prevent a vote being taken on the bill.

I distrust the Prime Minister in every way. I believe the Office should be able to declare war without a vote in parliment. What troubles me most about this article, is that a vote (a democratic process) can be prevented by someone talking too long. If it takes x minutes for a vote to be conducted, and y minutes are allocated to the debate, the speaker should end the debate when x minutes are left, thus ensuring the vote. What Geoff Hoon did here strikes me as being as undemocratic as a filibuster.

Root

Former Member

No root, according to the Constitutional separation of powers only Congress has the authority to declare war and that power may not be ceded to the President. The fact that this has become regular practice in Washington makes it no less unConstitutional.

The whole Washington system has long operated outside its intended Constitutional constraints.

Former Member

Jesus, what if the liberal democrats were in power!?

We'd have Hitlers appearing all over the world.

Former Member

It simply wouldn't work, in reality. It's a typical response from someone who doesn't feel as if their opinion got right of way, instead things just end up being debated in committee endlessly.

What Iraq does underline is the importance of making sure that you vote for the right person in the first place. You cannot bleat about the decisions someone makes if you supported their election...

Former Member

So by your logic, MoK, once elected leaders and officials may act with absolute impunity?

Interesting view of public accountability you have and one that many a budding criminal would be delighted to hear, I'm sure.

Former Member

Not quite what he said, but people who voted for Blair got the cunt they deserved.

Former Member

You cannot bleat about the decisions someone makes if you supported their election...

The "you got what you voted for so live with it" implication seems clear enough from his post. Such attitudes do nothing to advance the need for vigilant public scrutiny of said elected leaders once in office.

Little wonder that our Western democratic processes and institutions are rapidly becoming a thin veneer for authoritarianism and corruption.

[Edited to add:] The above comment itself is akin to saying to an employer, "you can't take your employee to task for dereliction of his duties once you've hired him". Accountability and consequences be damned, apparently.

Former Member

You can't vote for a bloke and then moan when he does exactly what he said he'd do on the frigging manifesto.

Former Member

Ah, so the Labour Manifesto said "we will send our armed forces off to Iraq to occupy its cities and surrender their lives in guerilla attacks on the basis of fraudulent, politically inspired claims"?

Former Member

This wouldn't have made any difference anyway because the government got it through the House by a big margin. And thats far more depressing than just Blair doing it.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Not quite what he said, but people who voted for Blair got the cunt they deserved.

:thumb:

Don't moan about Blair being a liar over Iraq. Anyone with an ounce of intellect would have seen that his promises in 1996 were all hot air and without substance. To me he had proved himself untrustworthy before even being elected. IMHO.

Clandestine wrote:

So by your logic, MoK, once elected leaders and officials may act with absolute impunity?

Not at all, I didn't say that he shouldn't be held to account for his actions.

However, Claire Short was happy to serve in his Government, principles be damned, and it makes me laugh to see her turn about face now that she has realised that she actually had little influence.

It's also a little ironic the number of traditional Labour supporters who voted him in (and abstainers from the electoral process) are his most vocal opponents. Perhaps they should have looked harder at what they were getting...

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Don't moan about Blair being a liar over Iraq. Anyone with an ounce of intellect would have seen that his promises in 1996 were all hot air and without substance. To me he had proved himself untrustworthy before even being elected. IMHO.

But even if he was an obvious liar in 96 its clear why people voted for him, they were just bloody sick of the Tories.

What is far less excusable is people voting for them since 96.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

But even if he was an obvious liar in 96 its clear why people voted for him, they were just bloody sick of the Tories.

So sick that they actually got the proverbial monkey in a suit...

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

So sick that they actually got the proverbial monkey in a suit...

Better a monkey than John Major? I'm not saying it was a good idea voting for them ever, what I am saying is its understandable, the first time at least.