Muhammad Haque [Times online] on the democratic morass in the UK and the de facto death of an intellectually & democratically active Parliament

0715 Hrs GMT 0815 Hrs UK Time London Wednesday 16 April 2008: Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole plot, KHOODEELAAR! the ‘No to unconstitutionality in the process of ‘legislation’ in the ‘uk Parliament’ CAMPAIGN again comments on the the unconstitutionality that is prevalent in the UK Khoodeelaar! the NO to the Crossrail hole Bill [the ‘hybrid’ UK ‘draft law’, that is, the ‘Crossrail Bill’, now in the UK ‘legislative’ House of Lords’] CAMPAIGN incorporating the relevant campaign against abuse of the licence-paying public by the BBC, as was perpetrated by the unethical and the immoral controllers of the broadcasting agenda of the BBC yet again for Big Business Crossrail hole ‘project’ on Wednesday 15 April 2008 and as staged on BBC1 TV [terrestrial] and as fronted by Andrew Neil, is demanding that the BBC tell the long overdue truth about Crossrail, that they apologise to the pub lci and to the ‘viewers’ for having lied for Big Business Crossrail over the past five years…..
[To be continued]

Editor©Muhammad Haque

0715  Hrs GMT 0815 Hr UK Time London Wednesday 16 April 2008:

Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole plot,  KHOODEELAAR! the ‘No to unconstitutionality in the process of ‘legislation’ in the ‘uk Parliament’  CAMPAIGN  again comments on the  the unconstitutionality that is prevalent in the UK Khoodeelaar! the NO to the Crossrail hole Bill [the ‘hybrid’ UK ‘draft law’, that is, the ‘Crossrail Bill’, now in the UK ‘legislative’ House of Lords’] CAMPAIGN incorporating the relevant campaign against abuse of the licence-paying public by the BBC, as was perpetrated by the unethical and the immoral controllers of the broadcasting agenda of the BBC yet again  for Big Business Crossrail hole ‘project’ on Wednesday 15 April 2008 and as staged on BBC1 TV [terrestrial]  and as fronted by Andrew Neil, is demanding that the BBC tell the long overdue truth about Crossrail, that they apologise to the pub lci and to the ‘viewers’ for having lied for Big Business Crossrail over the past five years….. Khoodeelaar! puts on the record on the London Times newspaper web site the fact of the absence of constitutional accountability that prevails in the UK…. 
[To be continued] 

View [below] the Muhammad Haque comment on the Timesonline as published today 16 April 2008


From The Times
April 16, 2008
Gordon Brown's trophy peers are victims of a well meant but muddled strategy
Digby Jones is absolutely correct. He should never have become a minister. This is little to do with his refusal to join the Labour Party, or about what his preferences might be at the next general election (when he will not have a vote anyway). It is simply because – as my colleague Sam Coates revealed in his report yesterday – the man who is now Lord Jones of Birmingham does not understand what being a Lords minister involves. Nor did Gordon Brown, who appointed him last June in order to demonstrate that he was forming a government of all the talents.

There is nothing wrong with bringing in non-politicians to serve in the Lords, provided that they appreciate what the role of a minister is. This is not just about taking an executive role in a department, or accepting collective responsibility as a member of the Government.

It is also, crucially, about Parliament, not only being accountable and subject to scrutiny, but also voting and taking through your department’s legislation.

Most outsiders appointed as ministers accept that range of responsibilities. Lord Adonis overcame the initial scepticism of some Labour peers about appointing a former Downing Street adviser as a minister by being assiduous in his Lords duties, replying to questions and taking through numerous Bills. Lord Drayson also won wide support among former defence chiefs in the Lords by his commitment to the Services. They took the Lords seriously, a minimum requirement if you are a minister.

But some of the five “trophy” peers – the outsiders brought in by Mr Brown – do not seem fully to understand this side of their work. There are unconfirmed reports, widely believed among Labour peers, that the five were told that they did not have to spend much time in the Lords.

Some have been patchy in performing their Lords duties, with Lord Jones an infrequent voter. The long-suffering Lords whips have to handle some of his department’s business.

The sensible thing would have been to give Lord Jones the same executive responsibilities that he now has as chairman of UK Trade and Investment, even to make him a peer, but not a minister. As he is reported to have said, his role in bringing business investment to Britain should not be done by a minister but by a leading independent businessman. His talents lie as a booster rather than a minister, with all that that entails.

Similarly, Lord Darzi of Denham, a distinguished surgeon as well as conducting a review of the NHS’s next stages, could perform his dual roles as an adviser without also being a minister – though he has already saved the life of one peer. And if Mr Brown really needs more views on domestic terrorism, he could have appointed Lord West of Spithead as an adviser rather than making him a minister, where he does not appear fully at home with the nuances of legislation in a chamber of legal experts.

Lord Jones and the others are in many ways victims of Mr Brown’s well-intentioned, but muddled, big-tent strategy. Lord Jones said yesterday that he had “never claimed to be a political animal”. He believed “trade and investment should transcend the factionalism of party politics”.

But then why did he agree to become a minister which, by definition, cannot be divorced from party politics?

HAVE YOUR SAY
If we have anymore peers in the house of lords they will be sitting on each others knees. I have never seen such a rabble as pictured in the house of lords today, they are a mockery of our noble society and the right to the working person. Is this the result of peers for £'s.
Pol, Melton Mowbray, Leics
Peter Riddell is correct to make the very timely point about accountability and the role of Parliament.

In the dozens of editions of the Gordon Brown defensive interviews given to the electronic media during Tuesday 15 April 2008, he did not once make that same point.

In any way at all. In fact Gordon Brown kept talking about his own background and how he was personally concerned about helping others in [he meant to say] society.

But neither Parliament nor society, let alone any political party with demonstrably democratic structure that might provide any pro-democratic support to the Gordon Brown regime, was allowed a look of.....


And NOR did the official Opposition party leaders in their own [less wide ranging] appearances on the media had anything to say about the substance of Parliament.


I would suggest that this absence of emphasis on the role of Parliament in holding the Govt of the day to account, and through all the procedural stages and concepts, is even more worrying than the periodic capitalistic crises that are being featured in the mainstream media and discussions.
Muhammad Haque, London, UK
Please do not let Mugabe win, reports on Zimbabwe are slowly lessening. If Mugabe had won the results would have long been released.
How low does the country have to get before the rest of the world intervenes.
priscilla, worcester,
"As long as they understand what it involves". Isn't that the eternal public school condecension to women/blacks/Jews/Irish/secondary modern kids etc etc. The more people who dont 'understand' that get into the Lords the better and more productive a place it will be.
E Skelton, Cardiff, Wales
Show fewer comments
HAVE YOUR SAY