7 ms·

It's totalitarianism, not authoritarianism.

simonh 12y ago
just because someone is talking about passing a law, through a democratiocally elected parliament and to be administered by an independent judiciary, you not liking it doesn't make it totalitarian. Having said that, I'm utterly furious at Cameron. I'm not actualy afraid they'll pass such a law, it would be ludicrous to try to enforce it and I'm sure cooler heads will prevail. IMHO that's not the real problem. The issue is that by mooting the idea of such a law, he is creating the impression in a non-technical public that such a law might be reasonable to even discuss and debate. He has established a basis for future, similar ideas to become an acceptable subject for public discourse. That is a pernicious and deplorable act. It creates space within which less infeasible but still awful ideas along similar can seem 'more' acceptable.
- avodonosov 12y ago
  The definition of totalitarianism is not me liking / not linking something, but total control of even personal, non-political aspects of life by state. As for "democratically elected parliament", FYI, Hitler came to power by democratic elections.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  just because someone is talking about passing a law, through a democratiocally elected parliament and to be administered by an independent judiciary Perhaps the biggest problem with our political system in the UK today is that all of those statements are now open to reasonable challenge. Two general elections ago, we found ourselves with a third-term Labour government that had an absolute majority, yet had won only 35% of the popular vote, just 3% more than the second-placed Conservatives. That's before you consider the issue of West Lothian question (Scottish votes affecting Westminster power balance), because the Conservatives actually had the popular majority in England alone. It's also before you consider the obvious electioneering of the Labour party, stating unambiguously that Blair would serve a full third term and Brown would not be taking over as PM halfway through, which of course is exactly what then happened. Last general election, the coalition government that ultimately took power wasn't directly voted for by anyone, and predictably upset a lot of people who had voted for each of the two parties in the coalition. Those parties have since reneged on several significant manifesto commitments, most infamously the Lib Dems on the issue of student fees. At the coming election, it is entirely possible that we will get the worst of both worlds. We could see an outright victory by the Conservatives or Labour with an even smaller fraction of the popular vote, as a result of our First Past The Post voting system and a division of votes between now five significant parties in England plus the national parties in the other parts of the UK. Alternatively, we could see any of numerous coalition possibilities, some involving more than two parties, inevitably meaning the politicians ultimately wielding power would not be able to implement some of the policies that may have earned them votes in the first place. In short, it's difficult to argue that our recent governments have even had a democratic mandate in the Commons. Of course, this is even less true in the Lords, where appetite for reform seems to have faded considerably since the AV fiasco early in the present government's term but we still have people who in principle can vote on our laws just because they are (for example) senior figures in a certain religion. As we've seen with the recent Snooper's Charter shenanigans, allowing unelected and unaccountable politicians to directly influence legislation is not necessarily a good idea. Finally, although our judiciary are in principle independent, clearly those who rise to the top of our legal system are not exactly representative of the population as a whole. Their collective views on a number of topical issues could be regarded as biased at best, and particularly when it comes to issues of technology and/or civil liberties, their track record in recent years is alarming. Not that any of this matters much if the authorisation of surveillance powers rests with a government minister rather than a judge, of course.

just because someone is talking about passing a law, through a democratiocally elected parliament and to be administered by an independent judiciary, you not liking it doesn't make it totalitarian. Having said that, I'm utterly furious at Cameron. I'm not actualy afraid they'll pass such a law, it would be ludicrous to try to enforce it and I'm sure cooler heads will prevail. IMHO that's not the real problem. The issue is that by mooting the idea of such a law, he is creating the impression in a non-technical public that such a law might be reasonable to even discuss and debate. He has established a basis for future, similar ideas to become an acceptable subject for public discourse. That is a pernicious and deplorable act. It creates space within which less infeasible but still awful ideas along similar can seem 'more' acceptable.

avodonosov 12y ago
The definition of totalitarianism is not me liking / not linking something, but total control of even personal, non-political aspects of life by state. As for "democratically elected parliament", FYI, Hitler came to power by democratic elections.
Silhouette 12y ago
just because someone is talking about passing a law, through a democratiocally elected parliament and to be administered by an independent judiciary Perhaps the biggest problem with our political system in the UK today is that all of those statements are now open to reasonable challenge. Two general elections ago, we found ourselves with a third-term Labour government that had an absolute majority, yet had won only 35% of the popular vote, just 3% more than the second-placed Conservatives. That's before you consider the issue of West Lothian question (Scottish votes affecting Westminster power balance), because the Conservatives actually had the popular majority in England alone. It's also before you consider the obvious electioneering of the Labour party, stating unambiguously that Blair would serve a full third term and Brown would not be taking over as PM halfway through, which of course is exactly what then happened. Last general election, the coalition government that ultimately took power wasn't directly voted for by anyone, and predictably upset a lot of people who had voted for each of the two parties in the coalition. Those parties have since reneged on several significant manifesto commitments, most infamously the Lib Dems on the issue of student fees. At the coming election, it is entirely possible that we will get the worst of both worlds. We could see an outright victory by the Conservatives or Labour with an even smaller fraction of the popular vote, as a result of our First Past The Post voting system and a division of votes between now five significant parties in England plus the national parties in the other parts of the UK. Alternatively, we could see any of numerous coalition possibilities, some involving more than two parties, inevitably meaning the politicians ultimately wielding power would not be able to implement some of the policies that may have earned them votes in the first place. In short, it's difficult to argue that our recent governments have even had a democratic mandate in the Commons. Of course, this is even less true in the Lords, where appetite for reform seems to have faded considerably since the AV fiasco early in the present government's term but we still have people who in principle can vote on our laws just because they are (for example) senior figures in a certain religion. As we've seen with the recent Snooper's Charter shenanigans, allowing unelected and unaccountable politicians to directly influence legislation is not necessarily a good idea. Finally, although our judiciary are in principle independent, clearly those who rise to the top of our legal system are not exactly representative of the population as a whole. Their collective views on a number of topical issues could be regarded as biased at best, and particularly when it comes to issues of technology and/or civil liberties, their track record in recent years is alarming. Not that any of this matters much if the authorisation of surveillance powers rests with a government minister rather than a judge, of course.