Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
Profoundly undemocratic; a nonsense; an outrage; a disgrace.
This Times leader clearly has strong opinions on the methods Labour used to force through its anti-terror legislation.
I’ve covered my opinions on the legislation itself, but I’ve yet to register my disgust about the fact that the government have forced through some of the most significant legislation of our time with just six hours of debate. That can’t be a good thing, and certainly can’t be in the best interests of the public.
And this from a man who says he’s not arrogant. To feel that you can force this kind of thing through with such a pathetic debate is arrogant. Mr Blair should learn that he doesn’t always know best, and the best way for him to learn this would be to suffer a battering at the next election.
This bill got through with a Labour majority of just fourteen. This shows why a party having a huge majority is generally bad for the country: A huge proportion of Labour MPs can be against something, as well as both of the main opposition parties, and it can still be passed. If the parties had roughly equal numbers, then the bill would have to be a compromise, healthily debated, and so would simply emerge as a better, crucially safer, bill.
Tony Blair and his government, despite their protestations, are clearly arrogant: If anybody’s “Out of order and control”, it’s them. And I hope that you, the electorate, will send that message to them by voting for someone else.