Digital Economy Bill

[Rupert_Baehr]

I'm disgusted by the apparent show of "we dont give a *****" form MPs, so out came my keyboard of rage..

 

They are Members of Parliament, not representatives of the people and most of them are members of political parties. They do not represent you or any of the other people who were permitted to vote for them.

 

It might be important for you but compared to genuine important issues such as health, education and the economy, your right to illegally download copyrighted material is relatively trivial. Aren't there more important things to worry about?

 

Is the real issue a question about downloading copyrighted material or is it a question of whether Parliament should simply ignore the wishes and views of the electorate?

 

...

if anyone is similarly disenchanted with their MP I suggest you send them a similar email telling them why you won't be voting for them

 

at least then they will know why the public are disenchanted instead of making up reasons to suit themselves such as "voter apathy", "too many MP's" , "slight tweak to the voting system", "four years instead of five" or some other "do nothing" change that will have bugger all effect

 

Unfortunately, Esmé, those people who do bother to turn out to vote seem to ignore the track record of the candidates, the promises they make and the likelihood of those promises being kept.

 

Just before the last General Election I heard very many outpourings of dissatisfaction against Bliar, his lies and his government's policies, but on Polling Day all that ill-feeling and dissatisfaction disappeared. Given that so few people had said that they were happy with his performance and that of his government, why were they re-elected?

 

Like you, I don't think Parliament serves the country well. The British Parliamentary system makes no pretense of 'Government of the people, by the people, for the people' but is rather 'Government of the people by the party for the party.'

 

As for only 40 MPs bothering to be present, could it be that the party/parties don't oppose the bill, that 'whipping' is used only when it's in the interest of a party and few members are willing to attend parliamentary sessions (Other than when the TV cameras are likely to be on them)?

 

Government by decree....back-door facism - who would have thought Nulabor could sink so low ?

 

The frightening thing is none of the other parties are likely to repeal these measures, they're just so useful.

 

Has Mandy been taking lessons from the Chinese ?

 

But government by decree is the way it's always been. - The main difference between this government and its predecessors is the number of decrees. - Nearly one new law for every day since they were first elected.

 

Mandelson isn't an example of things to come, he's merely a confirmation of the way things are. He is unelected. He has been rejected by the people in the past. That does not matter.

 

The party (or the people who run the party) like Mandelson and if they want him in government he will be in government. It's government of the people by the party for the party.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea simply to do away with elections? They're such a waste of money and anyway, once the plebs have voted, the people they elect will do as their party bosses tell them to do. If we really want somebody (like Mandy) in government, we can simply appoint him.

[esme]

You still come across as woefully naive if you think your MP is solely there for you to fire off long letters to and to expect an instant reply. Even if he agrees with your opinions (which is unlikely), he'll have been instructed by his party whip of which way to vote. Indeed you should be thankful your MP replied at all, most don't save for a standard letter saying they're aware of your comments blah blah blah.

 

That's just the way the system works. To vote against your MP over something he has no control over seems a bit unfair.

 

the length of my replies was dictated by the complexity of the subject and the necessity of demonstrating to a non technical user exactly how the technical aspects of the bill, that he did not understand but still supported, would cause miscarriages of justice.

 

if he didn't understand the issues then he should not have supported the bill until they were clarified to his satisfaction, which didn't happen.

 

I certainly didn't expect instant replies from him, I know he's busy, so am I, and I am as surprised as you that he at least attempted to answer the issues, however if there wasn't a chance of changing his mind he could have simply said so and I would have stopped bothering him.

 

he could have raised the issues I pointed out at any point after the bill entered the commons, he didn't

 

the bill was first read in the 16th of march, second reading 6th of april, once weekends and bank holidays are taken into account that gave about twelve days for anyone to start taking an interest, and then the election announcement and wash up process destroyed any further chances of proper debate of the issues in the bill, in those twelve days one campaign alone raised 20,000 emails to MP's regarding the issues in the bill, I am not the only person with concerns and had more time been available I think an awful lot more would have written to their MP's.

 

he was aware of these issues while the bill was still in the lords and advised waiting until the final wording was in place after parliament had scrutinised it, which didn't happen thanks to the wash up process

 

he didn't even turn up for the readings, he may have been at the debate but he didn't utter a word there either save for voting to pass the bill

 

if he was bound by the party whip on this issue all he had to do was say and I wouldn't have wasted one more second of my time or his on the matter

 

you may think he's not there to deal with constituents issues, in that case why is he there at all, what do you think MP's are for ?

 

we are just supposed to elect them and leave them to their own devices, while dealing with the issues the legislation they pass creates, on our own, is that the way it works for you ? and you are happy that that is the way it is ?

 

this is not the first bill with issues I have brought to his attention, I pointed out the holes in RIPA that would allow it's abuse and he chose to ignore the issues then and remain silent, now RIPA is abused by every tin pot council official who wants to know when people put their bins out, I have done the same with many other bills which are now acts and been proved right every time, yet he still follows the party line and will not represent those who elected him

 

it is not just this issue that has lost him my vote, it's his entire parliamentary record, this is just a convenient point at which I can inform him of the vote he has lost, as there is an election in the offing and we were already engaged in correspondence.

 

you imply I shouldn't punish him by withholding my vote because he's bound by the party whip ?, it is my opinion that MP's who put the party whip before their conscience have no place in parliament.

 

your posts on this matter have been singularly unconstructive, dismissive and outright ignored the issues presented in the bill, yet you persist in deriding those of us who are trying to prevent bad legislation from becoming law, at least partly on your behalf as I failed to see any such activity from yourself

 

all I was asking for was due parliamentary process, and a proper parliamentary scrutiny of a large and complex bill

 

if proper parliamentary scrutiny of complex bills is not part of his job then what is ?

 

you may think I was hopelessly naive for trying

 

I think you are just hopeless for doing nothing

 

I think if you are not willing to act on your beliefs and at least try to make a difference, then your beliefs are worthless and I would politely request that you keep them to yourself in future

[esme]

... Is the real issue a question about downloading copyrighted material or is it a question of whether Parliament should simply ignore the wishes and views of the electorate?...

 

downloading copyright material is a crime and should be punished as such.

 

however the real issue with the bill is that it makes no pretence of punishing those guilty of downloading copyright material, the bill simply assumes that the subscriber is the guilty party and directs all it's punishments and coercements at the subscriber, even if a third party illegally used their connection

 

it is as I have said previously as if a burglar were to break into my home and because the police can't find them they arrest and punish me instead

 

and the wishes of the electorate were that the bill should go through standard parliamentary process and be subject to the full rigours of debate and comittee review instead of being rushed through in extremely time limited sessions with no proper debate when half the MP's who were there freely admitted they didn't understand half of the clauses being discussed

 

why is it such a bad thing for the electorate to want MP's to follow standard procedure when defining the law of the land ?

[Wildcat]

--EDIT--

 

and another minor point regarding the party whip

 

the Labour MP for West Bromwich since 2001, a man who was a parliamentary secretary to the cabinet office until he resigned in 2009 a Mr Tom Watson, someone who you could regard as a staunch party man broke the whip and went against the wishes of the party on this issue (source - http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/357079/digital-economy-bill-passes-commons)

 

if one is capable of going against the whip they all are

 

There is an analysis of who voted and turned up:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/04/09/the-digital-economy-bill-who-did-what/

[L00b]

Catching up on this thread since I went away last week...this seems quite apt:

 

“The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship”

 

Justice John Paul Stevens, 1997, Reno v. ACLU (US)