How not to run the country
If you want proof that Labour still don't understand one of the major causes of the mistakes they made while running the country, you could do a lot worse than look at this image they have just put up on twitter.
They compare a full page of writing describing lots of laws Labour want to pass with the fact that fewer laws were passed last year than any year since 1950 and say that the Conservative plan is to "Chillax." In other words, they are arguing that the more laws you pass the better you are running the country.
That is wrong in so many ways and on so many levels.
Sir Winston Chruchill put it very well when he said that
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
We don't have a problem wtih too few laws in this country, we have a problem with too many laws, pushed through in too much of a hurry, with too little thought and too badly drafted.
All governments are inclined to pass too many laws for fear of appearing not to do anything about whatever problem is currently top of the newspaper headlines or causing most angst on the doorstep.
Sometimes they pass new laws against things which are already illegal
(e.g. incitement to racial hatred could always have been prosecuted under the laws against conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.)
Sometimes they pass laws against non problems
(the ban on beef on the bone)
or badly drafted laws which make matters worse
(the dangerous dogs act springs to mind ...).
One thing which a lot of the least successful laws have in common is that they were badly drafted, at least partly through trying to get too much legislation through the Westminster machine.
I don't buy the "Zombie parliament" concept at the best of times - the worst possible reason for passing laws is to present voters with the impression of activity.
As it happens, one or two proposed new laws which the government is expected to put forward in the Queen's speech tomorrow, which I would like to see passed, are going to take a lot of work to get them right.
One is the Modern Slavery bill, which has the potential to be a powerful weapon against injustice if drafted properly and an unholy mess if parliament gets the details wrong.
Another is the recall bill giving voters the power to call a by-election and sack MPs who have misbehaved. I would like to see such a measure enacted, but not in a way which turns the government of the country over to lawyers and judges or which is so easy to trigger that campaign groups or the opposition of the day could make the country ungovernable by challenging government MPs in marginal seats who have neither done anything personally unethical or broken an election promise, merely for supporting a policy which the people challenging them disagree with.
Whether you agree with me on the principles of these bills or not, I can't believe that any intelligent person could dispute that it is extremely important on both these measures, and many other proposals which might be put forward for new laws, to draft them clearly and precisely so that the intention and interpretation of the law is clear, and the new law has the effect which was intended. That means very careful attention by parliament to the detail of the law. And it means you need to give parliament enough time to do the job.
Where you have proposals of this nature coming forward, it is far better to pass a few new laws which have been properly thought through, drafted carefully, and effectively scrutinised, than to pass lots of new laws which have not had such time or scrutiny applied and turn into a legislative disaster.
Labour's advert on this subject proves that they are light years away from being fit to run the country or deserving the vote of any elector with an IQ of more than 80.
They compare a full page of writing describing lots of laws Labour want to pass with the fact that fewer laws were passed last year than any year since 1950 and say that the Conservative plan is to "Chillax." In other words, they are arguing that the more laws you pass the better you are running the country.
That is wrong in so many ways and on so many levels.
Sir Winston Chruchill put it very well when he said that
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
We don't have a problem wtih too few laws in this country, we have a problem with too many laws, pushed through in too much of a hurry, with too little thought and too badly drafted.
All governments are inclined to pass too many laws for fear of appearing not to do anything about whatever problem is currently top of the newspaper headlines or causing most angst on the doorstep.
Sometimes they pass new laws against things which are already illegal
(e.g. incitement to racial hatred could always have been prosecuted under the laws against conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.)
Sometimes they pass laws against non problems
(the ban on beef on the bone)
or badly drafted laws which make matters worse
(the dangerous dogs act springs to mind ...).
One thing which a lot of the least successful laws have in common is that they were badly drafted, at least partly through trying to get too much legislation through the Westminster machine.
I don't buy the "Zombie parliament" concept at the best of times - the worst possible reason for passing laws is to present voters with the impression of activity.
As it happens, one or two proposed new laws which the government is expected to put forward in the Queen's speech tomorrow, which I would like to see passed, are going to take a lot of work to get them right.
One is the Modern Slavery bill, which has the potential to be a powerful weapon against injustice if drafted properly and an unholy mess if parliament gets the details wrong.
Another is the recall bill giving voters the power to call a by-election and sack MPs who have misbehaved. I would like to see such a measure enacted, but not in a way which turns the government of the country over to lawyers and judges or which is so easy to trigger that campaign groups or the opposition of the day could make the country ungovernable by challenging government MPs in marginal seats who have neither done anything personally unethical or broken an election promise, merely for supporting a policy which the people challenging them disagree with.
Whether you agree with me on the principles of these bills or not, I can't believe that any intelligent person could dispute that it is extremely important on both these measures, and many other proposals which might be put forward for new laws, to draft them clearly and precisely so that the intention and interpretation of the law is clear, and the new law has the effect which was intended. That means very careful attention by parliament to the detail of the law. And it means you need to give parliament enough time to do the job.
Where you have proposals of this nature coming forward, it is far better to pass a few new laws which have been properly thought through, drafted carefully, and effectively scrutinised, than to pass lots of new laws which have not had such time or scrutiny applied and turn into a legislative disaster.
Labour's advert on this subject proves that they are light years away from being fit to run the country or deserving the vote of any elector with an IQ of more than 80.
Comments