The latest news is that some 10% of MP’s are intending to stand down at the next election, if accurate, then we only have another 590 or so to go. It is clear, that many of our current batch of MP’s have failed to listen to the public, to the extent that, in my view at least, we have never had a period in our history where the people of this country have felt so disengaged from the politicians elected to represent us.

For the past 12 years, as a people, we have had to standby as our right to privacy, civil liberties and freedoms have been steadily eroded. Yes, this is the fault of the government, but it is also the responsibility of the opposition MP’s who have failed to wade in on our behalf. Our country is more like a police state than ever before, New labour has introduced during their time in office, some 3607 new laws. The police have been provided with massive powers to stop and search, arrest and detain. They have been provided with their very own ‘weapons’, including a steel truncheon, pepper spray and now all front line police officers are to be provided with lethal Tasers, some 10,000 of them. We no longer feel like a free country, instead we are ruled, monitored and controlled. Our police officers don’t care or don’t know the difference between a protest or a riot. Our action, words and thoughts are constantly monitored and recorded on a raft of databases, even our children have their every action recorded on a database, information from which, will be used to determine whether or not they are likely to turn into criminals (see: Onset Profiling Tool).

Much has been said about MP’s self-interest. They have benefited for decades from an expense and allowance system that actively encourages abuse. Yes, their actions may well be “within the rules“, but the rules were quite clearly wrong, yet no-one did anything about it, only now, when the Freedom of Information Act meant that the public could review their expenses have they started to consider revisions. Gordon Brown as Chancellor decided that he was going to raid the private sector pension plans, this action has raised approximately £10bn per annum, money that has been squandered, not invested. Meanwhile, they have done nothing about public sector pension plans which will, if not dealt with quickly, bankrupt this country, because they are paid out of tax revenues, not a pension fund. Our MP’s failed to consider the irony of the fact that whilst they were punishing those that had diligently invested in a private pension, members of parliament had one of the best pension schemes in the country. Now, there is a private members bill going though parliament that seeks to protect all public servants, MP’s included, from any wrongdoing if they can claim ‘reasonable discretion’. How can they claim to be representative or not full of self-interest?

No matter what political party you support, even the most foolhardy could not claim that our current government has any real direction, their rallying call is always “we will do whatever is necessary“, that does not provide much confidence, given it suggests that they are not in control, are lacking direction and any fresh ideas. Above and worst of all, it implies that they are reactive, not proactive. Whenever Gordon Brown or his cronies have to defend their actions, or lack of them, they always turn to party politics, by claiming that “at least we are doing something, the Conservatives would do nothing” or “we are investing, whilst the Conservatives would cut“. Haven’t they worked it out yet, the people of this country are simply sick and tired of this bullshit. Gordon Brown and his cabinet need to be reminded that the Conservatives are not in power, they are! In fact it is 12 years since the Conservatives were in power, New Labour can’t continue to blame the Conservatives for everything. All MP’s need their heads banging together. The opposition parties have not offered much opposition to this New Labour government, in fact, many MP’s have been complicit in the mess that we are in by failing to say something. Apart from PMQ’s and one or two ‘major’ debates, there is rarely more than a handful of MP’s in parliament to debate our future or protect our interests from what has become a over-bearing, increasingly authorotarian government.

More than anything, I would like to see a massive clear out of MP’s, not all, but most. Clearly we need to retain some experience, but equally, we need to elect people that will genuinely represent our interests instead of their own. During the debate over MP’s expenses, I heard some of the most impassioned speeches ever, it is quite telling that it had to take something like their expenses to illcit this type of response! It also brought out some of the worst aspects of the self-indulgent character of our MP’s, with some whining about how poor their wages were, or suggesting it was a vocation not a job, implying they are doing us all a favour. The bottom line is, they knew what the pay was before they entered parliament, if the money wasn’t good enough, they should have done something else. What they need to remember is that parliament is not a true meritocracy, MP’s get to keep their jobs irrespective of their abilities, at least for 5 years anyway. In addition, very few are promoted on merit, because in parliament, promotion is normally offered as a reward.

That notwithstanding, if there are any MP’s that are not happy with the wages, prospects or allowances, then I feel certain there will be thousands of people who would be delighted to work for £65k per annum, and above all, for the privilege of being able to represent their constituents. I would like to see the political parties open their doors to ordinary people. By limiting their scope to mates, old Etonians, union leaders and the like, so they limit the spectrum, depth and ingenuity of our parliament. For me, unless we witness a substantial change to our representation, a return to democracy, renewed respect for the people of this country and an end to cronyism, then I think it is time to consider emigrating.

Finally, one of the major political parties has come out and made a clear and unequivocal statement in favour of returning power to the people. The LibDems have promised to repeal the series of authoritarian measures introduced by New Labour, which has lead, to put it in their words, to the “slow death” of our civil liberties. To be fair, the LibDems have taken a long time to recognise that this is a key are of concern for citizens of this country, but lets face it, better late that never. What a pity that the Conservative party have been so weak when it comes to civil liberties and government intrusion, but then again, they demonstrated their true colours when they sided with Jack Straw, when he used the Ministerial veto to hide the the minutes of cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq War from the public.

The LibDems are calling on the government to reverse the controversial policing and criminal justice legislation introduced in recent years. Doubtless, this request will be ignored, given our current government have demonstrated time and again, that they have little or no time for anyone who would dare to criticise their policies. Further, this government have consistently paid lip service to the hard won freedoms that we have enjoyed prior to their term in office, dismissing protests with a wave of their hand. New Labour’s philosophy it is the state that is master, not the people, supporting this argument by spending £billions on new methods to record information of the general public.

The LibDems have stated that they would reduce detention without charge from 28 days to 14, remove the ministerial veto altogether, allow DNA to be retained only in cases where someone has been charged and convicted, scrap ID cards and order a full scale review of the use use of CCTV cameras, which now numbers over 4m. To put that into perspective, in 2004 a European Commission report found that there were some 40,000 cameras monitoring public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities. Little wonder that nearly every report you read states that we are the most spied on country in the world.

However, the LibDems need to go much further. They must seek to cancel the Big Brother Britain databases that this government has either introduced or announced. At the very least, this should include the database proposed in the new Data Communications Bill intended to record every call, text message and email we send or receive, in addition to spying on our internet browsing habits. As well as the latest government wheeze, the travellers database, that seeks to record every trip we take, where we go, how we pay and where we sit. There should be a review of the ContactPoint database already introduced in terms of whether the benefits will outweigh the cost and risks and the NHS database, which is hopelessly inefficient and is the subject of much criticism from the very practitioners who are supposed to benefit from it.

I have never voted LibDem in my life, I have always viewed them as the party of high taxation, the Green Party in disguise if you like and quite frankly, lacking in any real substance. However, I have been heartily impressed with Vince Cable’s take on the economy, not that I have agreed with everything he has said, but he speaks with authority and knowledge, unlike some other that you would expect to be well briefed. Compare that with the wishy-washy approach from the Conservative party and the reckless abandonment demonstrated by the current Labour government. I fail to see much difference between the policies of the Conservatives and those of New Labour, it just seems to be more of the same, couched in a ’softer’ tone or called by a different name and that is NOT what I want. Labour have promised us tax increases, the Conservative party have promised us tax increases, so what the hell, they are now all on a level playing field. The Labour party have demonstrated that they could not give a toss about our right to privacy, liberty and freedom to go about our business without state interference, the conservative party have said a few weasley words in condemnation, but nothing more. so I think we know where they stand, especially after their appalling and ill-conceived support for Jack Straw and his ministerial veto.

In fact, there is so little to choose between any of the main parties, that I suspect who we decide to vote for, may well be based on something that they do differ on, provided it is important to the voter. I believe, that whilst all parties broadly agree on key electoral issues, such as the NHS, education, crime, immigration, the environment and taxes, it will be the smaller things that become the deciding factor.

For that reason, unless we start to see substantial policy differences, not variations on the same theme, I do not believe that ANY party, especially the Conservatives, can count on winning the next election. In my view, the next election will go to the wire, people will decide late in the day and Cameron & co, unless they can highlight real policy differences and intiatives between the Conservatives and Labour, will be left with egg on their face. This could lead to the LiDems and other independent parties being in a position whereby they can punch well above their weight. Having seen what happens when a government gets such a massive majority, I never want to see that happen again, because the longer the term in office with a large majority, the more authoritarian they become. Given none of the parties are talking about wholesale reform, it can be safely argued that there is no need for massive majorities anyway.

Hard-liner, David Blunkett, is expected to criticise the government’s continued obsession with creating a surveillance society intent on infringing the liberty and rights of British citizens in an address at the 21st annual law lecture in Essex University’s Colchester campus. Although Blunkett is expected, wrongly in my opinion, to claim that the government has got the balance between liberty and security he will voice concern over other highly contentious issues.

He will come out against the Government’s controversial plan to set up a database holding details of telephone calls and emails and its proposal to allow public bodies to share personal data with each other. He will also suggest a complete U-Turn on compulsory identity cards, although he is expected to insist that they should be mandatory for all foreign nationals. David Blunkett is also expected to urge the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to dilute the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill on data sharing between public bodies. He will warn: “It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have.” Similarly, he is expected to criticise the misuse of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been used for example, by local councils to tackle dog fouling and the monitoring of rubbish (no, not MP’s, refuse!)

When someone that so vehemently supported the introduction of ID cards and tough anti-terror laws raises concerns about the risk to privacy and liberty, the government must sit up and take notice. Although Blunkett’s comments are measured, it is reasonable to surmise that he is genuinely concerned and in order not to embarrass the government, he has couched his comments to be received positively. In just over a week, we have had the former head of MI5 criticising this government’s intrusion into our lives and now a former, hard-line Home Secretary. When will the government realise that they have gone way to far and, when will opposition parties appreciate that they would be pushing at an open door if they agreed to review and if necessary, repeal oppressive and draconian legislation that infringes the rights of the people of this country?

I will let David Blunkett have the last few words. “The strength of our democracy is that we are able to challenge when the well-meaning, but sometimes misguided, take their own knowledge of the threats we face to be justification for protecting our mutual interest at the expense of our individual freedom. If we tolerate the intolerable, the intolerable gradually becomes the norm.”

I ask this question because I have to confess, my understanding of what a Bill of Rights should be, seems to differ from that of the current Labour administration and I suspect, those views held by the other political parties.

I understood that the new British Bill of Rights was going to be based loosely on the classic Bills of Rights, from Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or perhaps the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 or the American Bill of Rights of 1791. Which was principally the protection of an individual’s liberty against the intrusive and interfering power of an overbearingstate. I figured that the government may seek to include some general  human rights issues. Such as those included in the “Four Freedoms” speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1941. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship, freedom from want and, of course, freedom from fear.

Instead, as I understand it, the intention is to bring in something of a ‘nanny state’ Bill of Rights. That is to say, that an individual shall have the right to, for example, a job, food, clothing & recreation. The right to a home, as well as economic support through old age, sickness or accidents. To education and medical care. As a quid pro quo, the government intend, as I understand it, to include “citizens responsibilities”. I simply cannot see how any government can guarantee these particular social and economic ”rights”. In my view, it can only ever be a statement of intent by the government, perhaps a modern day ‘mission statement’ if you will, but they cannot be legally enforceable rights? 

As it is proposed, the whole thing is farcical, but not funny. This is because vast sections of the proposed new British Bill of Rights are unnecessary, in light of the fact that ’rights’, such as benefits payments and the minimum wage are already legally enforceable.

In my view, we need to go back to basics. The reason we need a new British Bill of Rights, is to protect us all from repressive, intrusive and unnecessary government sponsored legislation which seeks to treat every citizen as a potential suspect. The Big Brother Britain that has become our lot in life! The British public desperately and urgently need protection from the state itself. This is what I said a few months ago;

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must then be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

 News that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have been told by cabinet colleagues that their proposal, as it stands, is unworkable, comes as no surprise to me. This government has completely missed the point and so have many members of parliament who support a statement as opposed to an enforceable bill of rights. The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I don’t know whether Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are being deliberately obtuse, or whether power has gone to their heads, but what is clear, is that the biggest danger to the citizens of this country is him, his government and their policy of systematically repressing the people of this country, to the extent that Privacy International were moved to say of us ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

New Labour need to stop, listen to what WE want and then provide a British Bill of Rights that entrenches those values and freedoms. A Bill of Rights does not need to include mission statements, nor any statements of intent. Moreover, there is no need for it to attempt to provide unenforceable, wish-washy promises on economic or social issues, these are covered elsewhere. Instead, the British Bill of Rights needs to be a solid, unbreakable commitment by the government of the day to treat each if its citizens as individuals. It must reinforce the notion of ’innocent until proven guilty’ and not seek to do anything that would remove an innocent individuals right to privacy, self-respect and liberty.

Clearly this is sensitive issues and a personal perspective, so I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Perhaps some will believe that it should include social and economic commitments, my fear however, is as soon as you make something so all encompassing, it becomes a fully-fledged legal document rather that a unambiguous, bulleted statement of rights. Legal documents are a lawyers dream and a litigants worst nightmare, because the fuller the statements, the more opportunity to interpret, wriggle and overturn. We need, clear unambiguous statements!

We must not allow this opportunity to pass or turn into a typical New Labour fudge, all spin and no substance.

Ministers are considering draft proposals whereby up to 186,000 licensed premises, including bars, clubs, pubs and restaurants would be banned from offering free drinks and will face restrictions on so called “happy hours”. The proposals also suggest that wine should be served in ‘marked’ glasses and health warnings placed on drinks. New Labour, not content with the cigarette ban, which has seriously contributed to the closure of over 5 pubs per day, are now to consider having a second bite of the cherry. Yet, this government claims to be “business friendly”. This is simply not true.

Whatever your views on smoking, an outright ban was a significant attack on the civil liberties of millions of people, yes, non-smokers also have rights, but neither group should have had preference over the other. An alternative for example, would have been to allow ’smoking pubs’ or clubs. The same goes for restaurants, they could have been allowed to have a smoking room, much the same as those at many airport terminals. Instead, this government chose to ride roughshod over millions of people, whatever the consequences to civil liberties and business. Now we are seeing 5 pubs a day close and behind each one is a story, an individual or family that has invested their life savings, or another that is working as an employee and subsequently risks losing their job because the pub, bar or club is scheduled to close.

Banning pubs and clubs from offering free alcohol or restricting the traditional happy hour, is not going to solve the binge drinking or yobbish behaviour that we see on our streets almost every night. We all have a choice as to whether we go to a particular pub or bar, partake in ‘free’ offers or take advantage of discounts during happy hour. That choice must not be removed, because to do so, only demonstrates, that the state is attempting to control the people, rather than the other way around. It is not simply an issue of a tired looking government trying to act responsibly, it is yet another example of the state trying to dictate how we run our lives. Already they tell us where we can smoke, how much of our own money we can keep, how fast we must drive on the roads, where we can park, the list is endless…and yet this is supposed to be a democracy.

I am not advocating that there should be no rules, regulations or laws, that would be anarchy, but I am suggesting that there needs to be a commonsense, joined up approach…..moderation. There are 65m people in the UK, yet we are all tarred with the same brush, we could all, technically, have the toughest anti-terrorist laws in the world used against us, by our own government. Even though genuine ’terrorists’ count for an infinitesimal number of our population, the legislation assumes that the problem is much, much worse, introducing a fear fact designed to push us all into submission to another draconian peice of legislation. This scattergun approach to new legislation seeks to destroy the civil liberties of us all, given it does not even attempt differentiate between good and bad. By imposing a ban on everything the government doesn’t like they get, more and more control over the people. 650 Members of Parliament, ruling 65m people…maybe they feel they need this type of legislation to control us all.

What happened to personal responsibility? if people want to binge drink, that is their choice, however, if they overstep the mark, that is to say they interfere with other people trying to enjoy themselves, then they should be dealt with severely. Instead of a smack on the wrist and being sent home, or a night in the cells and sent on their way the next morning, they must be punished in a way that they will remember their transgression for a while to come. Yobbish or anti-social, drink related behaviour should be punished by at least one months income, irrespective of whether the individual is a high earner, on the minimum wage or on social benefits. These sums should be deducted direct, so that employers are made aware of the behaviour of some of their employees outside the workplace and those on benefits cannot refuse to pay. Harsh yes, but it is likely, that unless the individual has a drinking problem which requires help, then they will remember the lesson for a long time to come. Similarly, high earners would be hit proportionally to their earnings, everyone being treated equally.

If I drive too fast and have an accident, I wouldn’t expect the government to ban cars, if I cut myself whilst shaving, the state does not need to ban razor blades. In each case it was my decision, I would know the risks and expect to pay the consequences. No-one else. On the other hand, if we were talking about my children, then I may impose restrictions, until I felt that they were old enough and mature enough to make their own decisions…but only until then. So what do these restrictions on our civil liberties say about what government thinks of us? They treat us like children, they assume that none of us are capable of making our own decisions in life, instead, we must be controlled by rules and regulations.

We must not look at things like this potential ban as a single issue, that is what government wants us to do, instead we must look at each example as further evidence of this nanny state, further evidence that the state wants to control every aspect of our lives, even if this means new draconian acts of parliament to get those powers. We have seen this government use the anti-terrorist act to sequestrate the assets of the Icelandic bank, that was not what the legislation was for and in a prime example of how state can, will and does abuse the trust that we all put in them, when they are elected. There was plenty of other legislation that could have been used in the example I cite, without resorting to anti-terror legislation.

We should all be telling our MP’s the the vast majority of us are sensible, law abiding and have large doses of commonsense…in fact, much more than many MP’s. Therefore, we do not need, nor do we want a nanny state, we want less regulation and rules, not more. Does anyone feel safer as a consequence of the 7,000 additional laws introduced by this government? The answer is an emphatic NO…and that is why we must tell our elected members of parliament, that enough is enough.

If you want to see how the state is interfering in our everyday lives, even in our children’s schools, then it is worth reading an article written by Shrewd Mammal, (White Rome Burns).

The Labour Party and the Conservative party agree on the need for a ‘Bill of Rights’ in the UK to protect the rights of the individual. Hooray! However, it would appear that they cannot agree on what areas it should cover…that is no excuse for a delay, the two parties need to get together and sort it out, leave party politics behind and remember that they are supposed to represent and serve the public of this country. It is what we elect them to do and what they get paid for.

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must them be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

It is rare that the Labour Party and Conservatives agree on much, they have a duty and a responsibility to get this thing done, we will be watching and judging them by their deeds, not their words.

We used to be able to rely on the Magna Carta, but through the efforts of this government and European legislation, we have slowly become the ‘little people’ as self-serving ministers ignore the rights and wishes of the majority, in favour of a very, very tiny minority. This is not acceptable. If a Bill of Rights can entrench our values, what is sacred and what must be protected, then we should introduce it soon. The American have been able to rely on their Bill of Rights, which includes the first 10 amendments since 1791.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...