grandad wrote:
I don't think it was "rubber stamped" It went through all the usual process including amendments before it was passed.
Yes, that's what I meant by rubber-stamped
Seriously, though, my feeling from afar about the whole thing is that the Tories gave the LC a remit and expected it to come up with a certain answer, in broad terms at least. As I recall it, the LC said initially that the Government had given it a deregulatory remit - it was never supposed to be a wholly independent and dispassionate review of the legislation. So to that degree it was simply rubber-stamped. Of course, that's maybe over-simplying the various processes and procedures involved, but at the end of the day that's my opinion on how it all panned out.
Another way of looking at it is that I suspect the whole debate would have proceeded differently if it had been known how it would all work out as regards Wolverhampton etc. That's not to say it would be reversed if the whole thing was revisited, but I suspect there would be a bit more opposition and insightful debate next time round.
And I know things aren't quite the same in Westminster, but up here *no* SNP MSP will vote against Nicola Sturgeon, and the committees are SNP-dominated, so any opposition/criticism from them is likely to be muted.
Not that the Scottish Parliament actually does very much, despite the impression you might get down there. It's all preening and posturing, and blaming the Tories. And troughing, obviously.
In fact I think the parliament has gone whole *years* without actually passing any legislation
But when or if it does, you can be assured that it won't be enacted unless it's largely Nicola Sturgeon's work
In fact there's a thing cynics call 'policy laundering', which essentially uses supposedly third-party independent bodies to support particular policies and proposals, but in reality they're very often more linked to government than it appears at first sight. But the facade makes it all look more democratic and legitimate.
Good piece here from a London-based website, by an English author, who mentions the example of the Scottish Trans Alliance
Here's a quick extract:
Mary Harrington, Unherd wrote:
The whole cycle amounts to a process of laundering, by semi-independent bodies, a series of policies the government already wanted to adopt so they look as though they come spontaneously from the society upon which they will in due course be visited.
The result looks like a thriving voice for civil society in the national debate. But in reality it is more like the government having a conversation with itself, via a series of proxies. Meanwhile, that part of civil society without insider status sits scratching its head trying to work out which form to fill in to get a seat at the table.
https://unherd.com/2019/12/three-cheers ... l-society/I'm not saying the Law Commission is exactly like that, but these things are never quite as they seem either.
Login
Register
FAQ
