Nick Clegg is asking for our thoughts regarding his proposed repeal bill. My answer would be simple – everything that has been enacted since 1997 – then work back from there…
A byline from Norman Smith, who is the chief political correspondent on Radio 4 trotted out the same tired statist claptrap we have become used to from the rent-seekers, hangers-on, hard of thinking and the indoctrinated.
First, exactly which civil liberties should be protected?
After all, one person’s civil liberty is another person’s civil imposition. For example, is the law banning smoking in a public place a restriction of personal freedom? Or is it a sensible measure to protect people’s health?
See what he did there? He confused (deliberately or otherwise) freedom to and freedom from. It’s the same trick the Labour party used to justify increasingly illiberal laws – people had the right to be free from crime – therefore we were all treated as potential criminals. So, yes, to answer the inane rhetorical question, banning smoking in public places is a restriction of personal freedom. Not only that of the smoker, but of those landlords who may wish to cater for smokers and non smokers alike by providing a choice in their venue. The answer to the question of course is; all of ’em.
Second, there’s a danger Mr Clegg’s drive to reduce the number of laws may end up creating even more laws. Hence if you want to curb the use of CCTV, you may have to pass new laws imposing fresh restrictions.
More claptrap. No, you do not have to pass more laws. You encourage something that got lost along the way; personal responsibility. Until the crutch of the state is removed, this will never return. So, doing away with useless CCTV that is largely about being seen to do something rather than actually doing something does not mean new laws need to be enacted at all. You merely do away with those laws and regulations that enabled them. But, if you do need to pass legislation that restricts the activities of the state, that is no bad thing, is it?
And finally the public may come up with some unwelcome advice for Mr Clegg on treasured Lib Dem policies.
I’m inclined to respond to this cack with “Yes? And? So?” However, I suspect that rather than it being unwelcome to Nick Clegg, what Norman Smith really means is that they are unwelcome to Norman Smith…
Loved the way the Beeb guy presented the smoking ban experiment as something incontrovertibly good.
As you say, he seems not to understand personal responsibility … but he also doesn’t show any sign of recognising the rightful place of ‘choice’ in a free society.
(Just posted the same comment at Leggy’s gaff).
This is misdirection on an unimagined scale.
David Copperfield (the magician, not the Dickens character) would be absolutely tumescent. He would be turgid with delight.
Clegg is a twat. He was a twat before he was 2IC. Now he is a twat trying to hurl bread at the crowds.
Rush over there by all means. But if you expect change as a result, you are also a twat.
It’s a game. You are a pawn.
Realise THAT, and you have begun to wake up.
CR.
“No, you do not have to pass more laws. You encourage something that got lost along the way; personal responsibility. Until the crutch of the state is removed, this will never return. “
This is key. People have got to stop falling into the trap of thinking ‘X is bad! The State must tackle people who do X’.
“everything that has been enacted since 1997.”
Now that’s what I call a GREAT repeal bill. Absolutely everything. No exceptions.
Nick Clegg would be aghast of course. But I don’t remember witches being burnt in 1995. I don’t remember Africans being repatriated en masse. I don’t remember the streets of our cities being any more dangerous than they are now. Some of the laws that have been passed have not been disastrous. Some may have done some people a bit of good. (Especially people who do public sector non-jobs). But I can’t think of a single one that was really necessary. David Cameron managed to find three bits of post 1997 legislation that he thought were good – devolution, the minimum wage, and civil partnerships. I wasn’t convinced*.
But I’m a realist. If the coalition were to leave those three things in place and get rid of all the rest, I’d be satisfied.
*http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-political-consensus.html if anyone is interested.
Now that’s what I call a GREAT repeal bill. Absolutely everything. No exceptions
So you want the police to start prosecuting homosexuals for group sex again? Because that was illegal before the 2003 act and that is exactly what they would do. I thought that libertarians were opposed to victimless crimes.
What you do is repeal the original law that made it illegal in the first place. My original statement finished with “and work back from there”, so I was including all illiberal legislation that pre-dated 1997 as well. 1997 was merely my starting point.