The Professors passion for "The Science of Deceit" started here...

Employed by the Ministry (in a covert capacity) to help introduce the law ending dishonest politics, you can see his hand all over the posts of past.

Current political circumstances have forced him to reveal himself and as we speak, MPs are signing up to re-introduce The Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill for debate with over 80,000 voters supporting them.

Posts before Jan '08 are purely for the record (with hindsight they make fascinating reading). Posts after May 13th mark the Professor's return.


Meet the Professor

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Quote of the Week

In anticipation of our interview with the Lord Chancellor we thought this was appropriate...

"There is, I believe, a dissonance between our values as citizens of a liberal democracy and some of our constitutional arrangements. We should not ignore that dissonance. If, for example, we believe in equal opportunity and do not accept that education or jobs should be distributed according to which family you were born into, then why should our legislature include hereditary peers? Shouldn't we have the courage of our convictions, especially when it comes to deciding something so fundamental as our constitutional arrangements?"

Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor
Constitutional Reform Speech University College London, 8 December 2003

In effect - dissonance in values between the constitution and the values of a Liberal Democracy combined with "what's good for the geese is good for the gander".

Will he agree that it follows - if everyone outside of Parliament is subject to a healthy dose of statutes regarding misrepresentation of facts, misleading statements etc. our elected representatives should be ?

We'll find out soon enough.

14 comments:

  1. the ghost of Lord Hailsham31 Jan 2007, 10:03:00

    He must mean dissonance in values between a Liberal Democracy and an Elective Dictatorship.

    Shurely shome mishtake

    ReplyDelete
  2. Falconer said, "Why should the legislature include hereditary peers". He doesn't go on to say, "why should the legislature be filled with donors to the Labour Party" does he ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't understand how everyone can go around banging on about "The Constitution" when its such an untangible floating group of ideas. "The Constitution" can, like government stats, be interpreted to suit the speaker as he/she wishes. Isn't it about time we codified it. Writing has been around for about 4000 years after all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You may want to ask Falconer why the Attorney General - legal advisor to the government, is also the head of the Crown Prosecution Service - they're the guys who'll ultimately decide on whether to bring Blair and Levy to trial for the Cash for Honours debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't you need to have convictions before you can have courage in them ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It should be very interesting to hear exactly what he has to say on representatives being subject to the same penalties as the rest of us.

    Of course, after your encounter with DJ 'Fly' MP and MC Pendry, and knowing how well these guys spin, I wouldn't be surprised if he could turn that quote into an endorsement of thought policing and the gestapo...

    ReplyDelete
  7. slow down legal eagle, the role of the Attorney General is currently under debate - thank god but lets wait and see the outcome. Its a bit of damned if he does, damned if he doesn't scenario in truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. debate/shebate. Talk is cheap, monet pay da rent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. With all the accusations of cronyism floating around, perhaps the Lord Chancellor could explain why Labour "supporters" in the Upper House is any better than having hereditary peers. I hope the irony of doing away with one group of non-elected individuals only to be replaced by another group of non-elected individuals is not lost on him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. lordships two for a pound
    come on any colour ya like
    honours two for a pound!!

    shut up am eating me wings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is nothing to touch the taste of a torched radical. The smell. Delicious. I love the smell of godawful hippies flailing against the reality of government. Don't stop now. Let it sap the life from you. Just before you leave us, be sure to examine what you've achieved with your nonsensical quest.

    I'll be watching.

    ReplyDelete
  12. righfully anonymous5 Feb 2007, 12:42:00

    I find it bizarre that at this day and age, the constitution is so ill-defined, and hence leaves, for a lack of better word, a lot of room for “reinterpretation”. Perhaps, the current administration is largely responsible for awaking the public from the dream of liberal-democracy that was eloquently described by his lordship. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that power is addictive and must be separated accordingly, which of course can only be done through a proper definition of the game rules, i.e. a written constitution (as the “lawbunny” pointed out the irrefutable fact that humans had the ability to do so for about 4,000 years). I, sincerely, hope that many will agree with me, when I stress the importance of this document not just for the people but for the entire country, as it seems to be stuck in the past of her former “glory & power”, which has now, arguably, sadly passed away.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While I take the point that the current administration has abused the flexibility of our consitutional arrangements, I don't believe that having a written document will solve the democratic "dissonance" and bring back the "glory and power". We have never had a written constitution throughout our political history and therefore, presumably, throughout our former years of "glory and power." The point of an unwritten constitution is that, in the right hands, it allows for greater public freedom. Do you not think that having a written constitution set in stone, under the influence of the current administration, would simply place further limits on our liberty and simultaneously erase the hope for enhanced democracy in the future?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ask Martin Luther King - ain't no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Getta grip, get on board and GET IT ON.

    ReplyDelete