Election issues: Digital rights
· The Conservative Party
supports an open, innovative and safe internet, promoting growth and freedom of expression, where
legitimate business can thrive and citizens can express their culture and
develop their creativity.
We are clear that human rights apply online, as well
as off line. The UK is an active supporter of multi-stakeholder governance of
the internet and we welcome Tim Berners-Lee’s recent initiative of a dialogue
about the web we want.
Comments
so how do we redeem ourselves and get to the light side then Jim? - a fair question, though with a simple answer, we go for democracy. Brilliant, we use democracy. Ladies and gentlemen rather than turning to the dark side use democracy.
I give you the Harrogate agenda:
Our six demands...
1. Recognition of our sovereignty:
The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies.
2. Real local democracy:
The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;
3. Separation of powers:
The executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly;
4. The people’s consent:
No law, treaty or government decision shall take effect without the consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that none shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;
5. No taxation or spending without consent:
No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures;
6. A constitutional convention:
Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, must host a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It shall recognise their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and which shall be subject to their approval.
then maybe from the current madness something wonderful could flow.
1) What is the purpose of the separation of powers?
We've had a fused legislative and executive for centuries, the USA has had a separation between them, also for centuries. Both seem to me to have advantages and disadvantages, but what do you think the separation gains?
2) What is it envisaged that the counties will do?
Is clause two just about giving British local government the kind of constitutional status that States have within the United States of America's constitution so that they are no longer creatures of statute, or is there more than that to it? How is it envisaged that this would be different in practice?
3) What would be the terms of reference of the constitutional convention?
What is the purpose of the separation of powers ?
The reason parliament (the legislature) exists is to hold to account the government (the executive). Currently the executive is drawn from the legislature, meaning for each MP drawn into the executive there is one less MP holding the executive to account. There is a clear conflict of interest if the person acting to hold to account the executive on behalf of their constituents, is them self a member of the executive.
Also we can see that rather than hold to account the executive there is the “career path” blatently obvious. A member is less likely to strongly object to a particular issue, if said member believes it would be damaging to their own career, people wanting to climb the ladder to a ministerial position, rather than providing the very scrutiny of the executive they were elected to provide.
There are usually just shy of 150 or so ministers, whips and other office holders. This is informally known as the “payroll vote” – pretty much guaranteed they will vote with the government on anything. Its very difficult to argue those people are not compromised when it comes to holding the government to account.
What is it envisaged that the counties will do?
Currently the local governments (councils) are merely extended branches of the central government. Even in local elections its often heard “this election result will send a clear message to David Cameron/Nick Clegg/ Ed Milliband” when of course that should not be the case at all.
Another problem is that many different areas need different approaches, what is great for a constituency in the centre of London is not always what is best for a constituency such as Copeland.
As we stand the local councils exist because of acts of central government, are primarily funded by the central government, and any power they do hold is handed down to them via acts of the central government (that which can be given can just as easily be taken).
A democracy needs to be formed from the “Bottom up” the local council being elected and held to account by the local people, with real powers of recall. So we see the bottom up structure power being held by the people and loaned to Local government, which in turn may loan some of that power to a central government, with the consent of the source of power i.e. the people via referendum if need be.
What would be the terms of reference of the constitutional convention?
The codified constitution enshrines the sovereign rights of the people, Limiting the extent of any government power and the manner in which such power is used. its really just a belt and braces method of ensuring the flow of bottom up power. The constitution would not give the people power, in effect it would assume it from the start and would be written to imply that. Much like the US constitution starts “We The People” sovereignty is never granted to the people it is assumed and is implied from the very start. The people would of course have to ratify the constitution via a referendum.
I hope you find these answers do indeed answer your questions about the agenda, however, as always, more than happy to discuss if you have any further questions.