Good man. What a rare thing to see in a politician. Sounded very genuine as well.
1 Like
When the Turing pardoning happened, I was one of those who wasn’t ecstatic about it exactly because it would have opened the door to this sort of thing. At the time, campaigners were already of the opinion that it should have happened with a law like this. The Brown government weaselled out with an ad-hoc provision and called it a day.
Let me be clear: governments of all colours don’t want to do this, despite being overall a vote-winner in modern Britain (lots of LGBT MP, including party leaders at various levelsetc), because they fear to be exposed to compensation lawsuits, which could be very costly. It’s an open secret. These shenanigans to me sound like the Tories figured out this bill, as written, is not watertight enough on that front, and that (plus not letting opposition parties claim a free win, which is always bad) killed it. But it can’t be said, because one thing governments of all colors are great at, is hypocrisy.
3 Likes
Is that a problem?
Imagine President Trump appointing himself to the Supreme Court.
Thankfully no Lord Chancellor was anywhere near that bad but there was always the threat.
1 Like
And sadly, we can’t simply wait for the bigots to die. Sam Gyimah is 40. We’re actually going to have to vote them out or change their minds.
2 Likes
This British textbook
argues that three main theories animate how the British Constitution works in practice:
Separation of Powers
That there are three main powers in the constitution and that these should remain separate. The three powers are:
• Executive (Government)
• Legislature (Parliament)
• Judiciary (Judges)
Through separation, each acts as a check on the other. Therefore, power is not concentrated in one area.
Parliamentary Sovereignty
That of the three main powers in the constitution, Parliament is the supreme law- making body.
Rule of Law
That the three main powers of the constitution must observe the rule of law. This means:
• There is a check on the power of the Government in its decision-making.
• That no one is above the law – all are equal before the courts.
Very basic stuff. But clearly different from what American remembers from school (Montesquieu-- rigid separation) and what the actual US constitution entails (Madison-- partial separation tempered by intermingling of authority). The United Staters have chosen the first theory.
If the UK was the United States, you could make a persuasive argument that “the Lord Chancellor violates the separation of powers-- END OF DISCUSSION”. But it’s not the US. It’s a different country, and has its own “theories of the good.”
Instead, you would have had to overcome the argument that the Lord Chancellor’s unifying position serves some interest in advancing the rule of law-- though given that the European Convention on Human Rights had said otherwise, this would have been difficult.
(Of course, in 2005, parliament stepped in, exercising its supremacy, and decided the issue, rendering it a moot point.)
3 Likes
And there’s the rub. We know the process but most of the time the bottom line is indeed ‘Christ, what an asshole’, and these people are charged with looking our welfare as a society. I don’t want to despair but it’s an effort not to.
3 Likes
Good luck with that guy. He has a majority of >40%!
3 Likes
From what I remember of what I was taught when I was at Ruskin College, it was seen as a problem. Admittedly, Ruskin College tends to side with the Labour party and the unions.
2 Likes
Yup. We need to change the zeitgeist. I could’ve said that better. Politicians are just symptoms of society. But I think a lot of social progressives think we just need to wait for the old guard to die off and then we get change. If recent events in the UK and US have taught us anything, it’s that bigotry can jump generations without breaking a sweat.
6 Likes
For an opposing argument:
1 Like
also…money on Sam Gyimah caught having sex with another man in an airport bathroom in 3, 2, 1…seems to be a pattern with the super angry repressed conservatives.
6 Likes
To be fair, all I see here is disgusting political posturing in order to put a stop to human decency. And the person posturing doesn’t even have an alternative. He’s just preventing a lot of dead people from being considered innocent of something that shouldn’t have ever been a crime.
In other words, whatever explanation or defense this guy has is bullshit. The explanation is cold comfort at best, and the petty nature of “if that guy gets this law passed, then my team loses points. I have to stop it, even if I hypothetically completely agree.” is sickening and wrong.
I’m sick of the lack of human decency in politics. Bi/mulitpartisanship isn’t a dirty word.
6 Likes
He does, in fact, claim to have an alternative - a government-drafted bill to achieve the same ends. If this other bill is not introduced, or doesn’t do what the minister claims it will, obvious shower of bastards. Otherwise, this is the House of Commons sausage machine in action, complete with compulsory partisanship and bizarre pro-executive rules (like Private Members business being pretty much the only thing it’s still possible to filibuster in the Commons and it being routine for government ministers to do so).
I don’t like justifying that this is how business is done in the Commons, because I don’t particularly like it myself. And there’s a pretty decent argument that they should just have taken the Private Members Bill as written and not pissed around with it. And my friends are outraged. And I’m a left-wing member of the Labour party, so I have little sympathy for the Conservative Party’s well-documented homophobia. But this isn’t necessarily “disgusting political posturing to put a stop to human decency”. They’d most likely be doing the same if the bill was to do with protection of animals or something equally uncontrovertable; very few genuine Private Members Bills ever become law.
3 Likes
In case anyone is wondering…
The MP for South West Surrey is Jeremy Hunt, the guy who has been put in charge of the NHS, but believes in homeopathy, and that doctors should provide 7-day cover while being paid for 5. There are nine others, all Conservative.
Here’s the list. The others aren’t much better…
https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgMemberIndexMP.aspx
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
