Regional Summary  Founded - 30 April 2005 Population - 165 Nations World Ranking - 61 Regional Power - High |
Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate Pidgeon Island Members of the Committee TBA World Assembly Delegate Angusp (aka Bodegraven) High General of the GRADF Joe Bobs |
| Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums! Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register. Join our Community Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system. I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way. Getting Started If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| End of Democracy in the UK? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 6 2006, 09:10 PM (321 Views) | |
| Northern Chittowa | Apr 6 2006, 09:10 PM Post #1 |
The Grand Old Duke
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)
|
Saw this on the RLA forums and since we have not had a good debate here for a while, lets get one going. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747669,00.html Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power From forcing through ID cards to the erosion of parliamentary scrutiny, a determined clique is hijacking our democracy In January the commissioner of the Metropolitan police got into enormous trouble for saying that he couldn't see why the Soham murders had become such a big story. Like every other journalist, I marvelled at his inability to see what makes a story run. But now, as I follow the news, I have developed a blind spot of my own. Piece by piece, month by month, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. It is engaged in a ferocious power-grab. Yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care. The government is briskly and fundamentally reshaping the relationship of the individual to the state, of the Lords to the Commons, and of MPs to ministers. The ID cards bill will allow the authorities unprecedented surveillance of our lives, and the power to curtail our ordinary activities by withdrawing that card. The legislative and regulatory reform bill, now entering its final stages, will let ministers alter laws by order, rather than having to argue their case in parliament. Then this weekend brought another shocking government proposal to increase its own power and weaken the restraints upon it. Lord Falconer made clear that the government intends to drastically curtail the powers of the Lords. The current convention is that peers cannot block any legislation contained in a party's manifesto. In future peers will have to pass any legislation that the government deems important, whether it was in the manifesto or not. They will effectively be neutered. It appears that these changes cannot be stopped. Last week the Lords gave up their battle to stop the imposition of an identity-card register. They had pointed out that they were under no obligation to pass the bill, as the Labour manifesto promised the scheme would be voluntary, but what was proposed was essentially compulsory. The government's retaliation for their principled stand was swift, and should alarm all of us. These events reveal that our parliamentary system is already too feeble to stop a determined executive imposing its will. How improbable this scenario seemed when Blair won the election 10 months ago. His majority was slashed. He won only 36% of the vote. Both he and Brown stressed the need to listen more carefully to an electorate that clearly wanted a smaller government majority. Many of us took that to mean this would be a more careful, consensual government, aware that its mandate was limited. But the opposite has happened. Our political system is based on the assumption that there are always checks and balances to prevent unbalanced legislation becoming law. This has to be so, because as electors our participation in the whole process is so very limited. We cannot distinguish between the elements we like and dislike in a party's manifesto. We have to trust that any proposals that make us uneasy will be open to change as civil servants, public and parliament consider them. Every element of that process is now being enfeebled. Civil servants, ministers and MPs are all increasingly dependent on pleasing the executive if they wish to progress in their careers. In the Commons, only those who don't care about their political futures dare to rebel. The committees that scrutinise legislation cannot act independently as they all have in-built government majorities, with their members hand-picked. For instance, the new committee scrutinising the contentious education bill has been stuffed by the government so that not one of the 52 Labour MPs who voted against the bill is represented on it. And now the Lords is threatened too. This administration is taking the art of dismissing objections - from MPs, peers or public - to new heights. At the committee stage of the legislative and regulatory reform bill, MPs were assured that the act would not be used for highly controversial measures. They asked for such reassurance to be written into the bill, and for a long list of crucial acts to be excluded from its remit. The minister refused, saying he would recognise a controversial measure when he saw one. In the ID cards debates in the Lords, Baroness Scotland attempted to bully the peers into submission by maintaining that when the manifesto promised that ID cards would be "a voluntary scheme to be rolled out alongside the renewal of passports" that quite clearly meant ID cards would be compulsory for anyone wanting to travel abroad. As for the public, the London School of Economics was viciously attacked by the home secretary when it published a lengthy and deeply researched report on the implications of ID cards. The LSE's most recent report notes that, despite three years of notional consultation, the Home Office has not been willing to listen to any critical views. The legislation is going through practically unchanged. This behaviour is alarmingly arrogant. The prime minister's circle believe they have a right to push through any measures without hindrance, because they have a monopoly on wisdom. Their contempt for everyone else's motives and opinions is evident. Eighteen months ago a cabinet minister sneered at me when I asked whether he was worried that the public-service ethos was evaporating. It doesn't exist, he said; all these people care about is dosh. This demonising and misreading of others fuels the self-belief of the inner circle, who see themselves as valiantly trying to do the right thing in a hostile universe. A leading Blairite was recently at dinner with a friend, and found himself being challenged over the government's activities. Eventually, frustrated by the criticism, he leant forward and said: "What you don't seem to understand is that we are good people!" That injured comment is revealing. Even if it were undeniably true, it could not justify the hijacking of our democracy by a small, determined group. Good people can do bad things. What's more, bad people can follow them. Assurances of virtue are irrelevant. What matters is where power lies and how it is controlled. That stale phrase, an elective dictatorship, is now a real danger. The perverse fact is that we are being asked to place great trust in a government that makes a point of distrusting everyone outside its inner circle. If we don't share their assumption that they alone know what is best for the rest of us, we had better start protesting now. Last year Blair promised to listen to us. As he dismantles our defences, what he is hearing is something close to silence. |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Joe Bobs | Apr 9 2006, 02:44 PM Post #21 |
GRADF High General | FRA Arch Chancellor
|
If they tapped my phone... Actually, I presume they already have. What I mean is, if they openly declared phone tapping, like in the US... then I'd move to France or Canada or somewhere that understood what freedom actually means. And Scandinavia is too cold for me! Freedom is free. Taking it away costs a helluva lot. Like the billions they'll spend on ID cards to the trillions they pour down the drain on defence. If I was American, I'd have left that country as fast as you can say "Patriot Act." I'm sorry, but just look at its name. Patriot?! WTF? To me, that sounds like a Nazi Act. It instantly implies that all who are against it are unpatriotic. Was liberty not the main goal of the founding fathers? If I recall correctly, did they not speak of "equality, fraternity and liberty?" Note they didn't put "equality, fraternity and security." Oh no, despite being buggered daily by the English, they held freedom higher than security. So now, when the US doesn't really have anyone to fear (ignoring the 17 terrorists with beanie bags full of nitrates that the CIA could wipe out in a day, if they wanted to), why the hell has security become so important? The Patriot Act is undoubtedly the most unpatriotic thing in US history. I know Communists with better American values than George Bush and co. >sigh< rant over. Sorry for going 
|
|
|
|
| Calculators | Apr 9 2006, 02:48 PM Post #22 |
How very dare you
|
lol :lol: at some of the comments. NP rantings good 
|
|
|
|
| Love and Honour | Apr 9 2006, 03:15 PM Post #23 |
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
|
Joe that is how I feel. If the cost of security is loosing our freedom, inc. the freedom to be anonymous, then that it too high. I will make a stand if it comes in here and because, and only because, I have a young family I will use the Pass Card ( They learnt something from South African history) but only after I am caught and processed for a "made up crime". NC, the ruse "I have nothing to hide" is exactly the point. This Law assumes that anyone who disagrees and who won't carry the God dam card is hiding something. edit = spelling |
|
|
|
| Northern Chittowa | Apr 9 2006, 03:22 PM Post #24 |
|
The Grand Old Duke
|
I can see why people like yourself wouldn’t like it, however the point still stands; If they have nothing to hide then they should have one. But again i can see what you point is with the fact that those who are against it should not have to be forced to have it, however due to the times we live in things like this are needed...again this is just my PoV and i wouldn’t expect all to agree  |
|
|
|
| fighter4u | Apr 9 2006, 08:30 PM Post #25 |
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
|
Heh how is having ID cards being something so bad you rebel? Also the CIA can't do that.In fact terriosts could walk into Amercain anytime they wanted to.But they choose to try and go through a certain way which amercians feel safe,where they KNOW terriosts can't get past.If terriosts do it.They break amercians sense of being safe AND attack them. |
|
|
|
| Love and Honour | Apr 9 2006, 08:38 PM Post #26 |
|
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
|
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pre...y-stealth.shtml Details some of the reasons why I'm opposed. It smacks of "Big Brother" and soon I suppose we will have false claims of war to frighten us into submission.. Oh! we have that already 
|
|
|
|
| Pidgeon Island | Apr 9 2006, 08:49 PM Post #27 |
Not so stale.
|
Would somebody who is supporting the use of these cards care to explain how a piece of plastic would have stopped the London bombings? Or how it will stop furter terrorist attacks in the future. I for one don't see how it will. If these "people" are so intent on harming us, how will a shiny thing with their name on stop it? My view on this is:
|
|
|
|
| fighter4u | Apr 9 2006, 08:52 PM Post #28 |
|
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
|
Heh that shiny thing make sure people nkow who you are ro something.But that not what were aguring about.It about weather somebody should give up a bit of freedom for security. Also some words from a old man is pointless And Jesus mate if it was big brother you would rebel.My I think people are to praoiud about their goverment. |
|
|
|
| Pidgeon Island | Apr 9 2006, 08:55 PM Post #29 |
|
Not so stale.
|
But we knew who the people were who blew up them trains, they were all British citizens, one was even a school teacher or something of the sort. The plastic card would be useless. |
|
|
|
| Calculators | Apr 9 2006, 09:11 PM Post #30 |
|
How very dare you
|
i know but if it makes the government happy thinking it has done something good then hey. |
|
|
|
| fighter4u | Apr 9 2006, 09:35 PM Post #31 |
|
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
|
Heh were not aguring about weahter the ID card can actually stop any attacks.... |
|
|
|
| Love and Honour | Apr 9 2006, 10:36 PM Post #32 |
|
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
|
How |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Apr 10 2006, 04:40 AM Post #33 |
|
The American forefathers had nothing to say about "fraternaty"-Joe (At least in the sense you put it in.) ID Cards are an introduction into the inevidable barcodes or microchips they'll put in or under our skin. I am neither for nor against them, an ID card isn't going to get me caught nor the lack of having one keep me out of trouble. In fact, without ID cards if you were questioned you would probably be taken in, whereas if you have your ID you will just be sent a nice little bill you can fight through the legal system. Americans are issued SSN (Social Security Numbers) at the same time we're given birth certificates, which provide a good way of tracking us..from our grades in school, to our purchases online or with credit cards..even to the jobs we have. ID cards are actually safer than barcodes or chips, as they can't be changed..to an extent. Fake IDs are inevidable..but they won't be avaliable until after the first few months of the ID Cards releash. Big Brother is already in the UK..I've seen the webcams located freely around the UK..there is also the "Eye in the Sky"..have you checked out Google Maps? Quite scary how close civilian sat. pictures can come. Quit your bitching and line up for your tats! |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Apr 10 2006, 05:26 AM Post #34 |
Independant by Cynicism
|
It's been said but I gotta say it again in my own way. Security Cameras, Patriot Act, ID cards..they are when it comes to terrorism minimally effective or ineffective in stoping it. But they are effective in giving people the feeling they are safe, and that their government is doing something to protect them from the terrorists. When the cold hard truth is 1. the government itself has no idea how to protect itself and its people from terrorists. 2. there actualy is no direct way to stop a terrorist, you can go to your local hardware stores, grocery, and department stores if you wanted to make a bomb, a small one the packs a punch especaily if applied to a car, and nobody would know, you would just be another Joe Smith going to the hardware store to pick up some supplies. Thats the cold hard truth there is nothing that can be done to directly stop it, the government fears that, because the people will fear it if they all realize it, so what does the government do. They make false hope, false protection, false safety. Notice I said nothing can be done directly, directly being the key word. Improving relations with terrorist states [no I don't mean making friends and shaking hands with al queda but making friends with the governments where terrorists live in and making friends with the people of those lands], changing the public opinion to a positive one, is the indirect way to stop terrorist bombing, there will always be some nut but such actions will certainly make terorist attacks a rarety. But countries with power are so full of themselves, and have become so blinded by their power that they do not see any other way than "lets kill them all" solutions. Making friends would also mean the Elitist and fascist attitudes of administrations within certain countries that I shall not name, need to be dropped. The fact is that for example lets say we're talking about a scenario at a school [a school actualy has a good representation of a mini-society], where there is a shooting, but not the type of shooting where they just kill anyone but the type where they go out to kill the assholes, jocks, and bullies who've tormented them for many many years, if not directly then indirectly. Thats whats happening in the world today just a quiet nerd, or just a quiet antisocial person who's sat in the back of the classroom minding his own business, that has always been looked down upon, outcast, bullied, robbed, and beaten, just snaps. And declares war against all the popular kids [the west...us..the infidels.] Some of you might say well we didn't do anything bad to afghanistan, it was the mujahedin that started up this hate with their jihad...but really you have to look at the bigger picture. When that weird kid at school was hurt emotionally, physically, or verbally in any way even if it was just something small.. when he was young [so think back in history], even if it was just the act of being excluded without someone directly telling that kid we dont like you or punching them or insulting them. The kid will remember that. The bully will forget because its just another day for him, but that kid will remember it vividly for a long long time, and if reminded he'll probably remember it until hes very old and at his deathbed. Because its a wound a scar, and scars always leave a mark. So the US might've never done something to directly bully Afghanistan, but just excluding some country was enough to make a wound. Now I'm not trying to rationalize and excuse terrorism I am just writing the cause of it, I think the killing of innocent people that never did anything to you is ignorant, stupid, and terrible. If you are gonna kill eye for an eye, killing a thousand eyes that you've never met so that you could hurt the one that actualy did something bad to you makes no sense. [lol if you understood that].
Security has become important because security is false hope and false safety, it keep people [majority] from asking questions, going against the government, and from feeling bad. Its easy you make up some bullshit and make it sound true, and people will belive it. You could even say there is a conspiracy in making the intelligent turn out to be social misfit and to be looked down upon in schools. This way with low self-esteem, intelligent people when they grow older even if they realize all the wrong that is happening they wont speak out against the government. It certainly sounds possible. But I can't prove it? Also when I saw the name of this thread and read a bit the first thought that came to my mind is "V for Vendetta" [I haven't seen it but I know the jist of it.] |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Apr 10 2006, 05:45 AM Post #35 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
But remember the root of all evil is money...other than the creation of secruity measures to give a false sense of safety, the creation of secruity measures is to keep people happy which in turns makes them spend more money. I can trace the evil of money in just about any problem on Earth. [The evil of money is greed but money is the object of greed, greed is not a material thing, and I find that people visualize evil better if they can visualize it in an object, rather than something imaginary.] Money actualy covers many evils, and ties them together into a piece of paper. Other than greed, power lust, is also one of the parts that make up money. For those who are religious, I gotta say Satan had to do only one thing since the creation of man, which is create the idea of ownership, after that he just sat down and watched the show for the rest of eternity, because ownership turned into money eventually and will eventualy destroy us. But see money such a devious little thing because in today's world you can't survive without, while in yestrdays world you only had to think about harvesting/hunting for food and getting some clean water. shelter,clothing and companionship were easy to come by. Cuz you made it yourself. My own quote: "There is no greater act in the world than the act of creation. Because creation is an act of god, it is what connects us to god. Our ability to create." A quote I often use: "Money is the root of all evil." |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Apr 10 2006, 04:12 PM Post #36 |
|
Stay on topic! |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Apr 10 2006, 05:20 PM Post #37 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
Its on topic because its relevant. The End of democracy in the UK? and th evil of money is connected. Money as I explained covers several terms such as power lust, and greed. IF its the end of democracy in the UK its because of power lust and greed. So in fact it is relelvant and on topic because it is a cause, it is an answer to "WHY this is happening" I had to explain what that WHY is rather than just state it. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Apr 11 2006, 03:43 AM Post #38 |
|
Oh shut it with your bitterness to money. Money is evil..but you have to be evil to live in the "world." Without money there could be no standard of trade. Truth be told that money has brought much chaos to this world, but at the same time it has improved our standard of living. It has made "civilization" as it is. Otherwise we would all be communist..working for the better good of ourselves while trading for what we need from other people. The barter system works great, but we would still be where our ancestors were from if we remained on the barter system. |
|
|
|
| The Byzantii | Apr 11 2006, 07:20 PM Post #39 |
Irritant
|
When I become old enough to pay taxes I want it well spent... ID cards a rediculously expensive and increase the feeling of New Labour totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
| The Byzantii | Apr 11 2006, 07:22 PM Post #40 |
|
Irritant
|
Yes, what a horrible, disgustingly immoral world that would be. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic » |
6:00 PM Jul 13