andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-06-13 11:17 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-06-13 11:17 am
Constitutional change
Guardian Unlimited Politics has an article on the reshuffle yesterday.
Of course, by reshuffle, I mean massive constitutional change whereby the legal and political systems suddenly get a buffer area, the way QCs are appointed gets a radical overhaul. The Lord Chancellor's position gets removed after 1400 years (Bill just wandered by and pointed out that technically the English Parliament was dissolved in 1703 when the British Parliament was created, so it's a slightly tortuous 1400 years, but what the hell). Oh, and we just created a Supreme Court.
This, of course, was announced in a minor press release as "Reshuffling the Cabinet." The opposition came out with:
"To remake constitutions on the hoof, on the basis of personnel changes within the cabinet, is the height of irresponsibility. To announce it in a press release at 5.45pm on a Thursday evening is nothing short of a disgrace."
Personally, I find the whole thing rather amusing, and it seems to me to be a fantastic example that as far as Tony Blair is concerned the country needs to be dragged into the 21st century, he doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about it because he has a ridiculously huge majority and he doesn't see why he shouldn't do the right thing while he's got the power to do so. As someone who believes in benevolent dictatorships and only puts up with democracy on the grounds that it prevents malevolent dictatorships, I'm finding myself admiring this stance a lot. I may not agree with all the moves he makes, but I know that if I was in his position I'd be remaking the rules to suit me and not worrying about the opposition either.
Of course, by reshuffle, I mean massive constitutional change whereby the legal and political systems suddenly get a buffer area, the way QCs are appointed gets a radical overhaul. The Lord Chancellor's position gets removed after 1400 years (Bill just wandered by and pointed out that technically the English Parliament was dissolved in 1703 when the British Parliament was created, so it's a slightly tortuous 1400 years, but what the hell). Oh, and we just created a Supreme Court.
This, of course, was announced in a minor press release as "Reshuffling the Cabinet." The opposition came out with:
"To remake constitutions on the hoof, on the basis of personnel changes within the cabinet, is the height of irresponsibility. To announce it in a press release at 5.45pm on a Thursday evening is nothing short of a disgrace."
Personally, I find the whole thing rather amusing, and it seems to me to be a fantastic example that as far as Tony Blair is concerned the country needs to be dragged into the 21st century, he doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about it because he has a ridiculously huge majority and he doesn't see why he shouldn't do the right thing while he's got the power to do so. As someone who believes in benevolent dictatorships and only puts up with democracy on the grounds that it prevents malevolent dictatorships, I'm finding myself admiring this stance a lot. I may not agree with all the moves he makes, but I know that if I was in his position I'd be remaking the rules to suit me and not worrying about the opposition either.
Cognitive Dissonance
ouch
Re: Cognitive Dissonance
Certainly, he is over-friendly with Bush, but he's also stood up to him on numerous occasions, persuaded him to make changes and beeen influential. I just wish it hadn't cost us the compromises he's made over Iraq and the Star Wars programme.
Re: Cognitive Dissonance
I really think under a better system, like say my idea that you can vote for or against a group, people could have kept the tories out by voting against them and I very much doubt he's have a huge majority then
Re: Cognitive Dissonance