The Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.

A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.

The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed.

The combination of a coalition of bloggers and the work of David Howarth was primarily responsible for turning this from an obscure issue of complaint into a significant political headache for the government – and to see the proposals defeated.

But now we’ve got a mini re-run heading our way, courtesy of the Public Bodies Bill. What it proposes isn’t as bad as what Labour proposed back then, but the same principles still apply. It’s been heavily criticised by a Lords committee and the issue picked up by some bloggers so far, including Liberal Conspiracy:

The Public Bodies Bill – which abolishes as many quangos as possible – gives ministers astonishingly leeway to amend all legislation.

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee could not be clearer in its latest report that this goes much too far, and would be an important weakening of Parliament.

The Committee considers that the powers contained in clauses 1 to 5 and 11 as they are currently drafted are not appropriate delegations of legislative power. They would grant to Ministers unacceptable discretion to rewrite the statute book, with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny of, and control over, the process … The Bill confers powers on Ministers to make very significant changes. All orders under the Bill may amend or repeal any Act of Parliament and are thus Henry VIII powers. Orders under the Bill may even amend or repeal Acts of Parliament which have not yet been passed by Parliament (clause 27(2)).

The idea of giving the government the power to repeal an Act which has not yet even been passed is deserving of a Yes Minister plot, and it’s no wonder that both LabourList and Dizzy Thinks have also highlighted what is wrong with the proposals.

They’re right; the legislation should not pass in this form.

The underlying motivations for the proposals are far from all bad – a desire to get a move on with getting rid of unnecessary regulation. But in the haste to try to do the right thing, corners can be cut, mistakes made – and there is always the temptation to slip in more through the back door. That is why the concerns about the Public Bodies Bill expressed by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee are right.

The good news is that Liberal Democrat and other peers are not exactly lining up to give this legislation united unqualified backing in the Lords, and the government is also (to its credit) talking about making changes to the proposals. With the right public pressure the legislation can be made right.

Yes, we really do have to spend £150K alone on the salary, pension and NI contributions for the poor sods that have to sort out the latest self-congratulatory bollocks that our MPs want to spout off fruitlessly about.

The combination of cost and triviality of many EDMs has caused some people to call for their abolition. I think this is going too far, as some EDMs do provide a useful mechanism, as a focus for external campaign groups, to get MPs to put their views on the public record and to show the volume of support on an issue.

Many do not, so here are three simple suggestions for reforming EDMs.

First, as Dizzy and others have pointed out, there is really no need to print the EDMs on paper. An electronic version achieves all the benefits just as well (and in fact pretty much all that is needed already exists at http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/). So abolish the paper versions.

Second, a large number of EDMs get only a trivial number of signatures. In the 2009-10 Parliamentary session, for example, of the 1,315 EDMs and amendments, 383 (29%) got 20 signatures or fewer; 205 of those even received only 10 signatures or fewer.

So a simple introduction of a minimum number of initial signatories would cut out a huge amount of the trivial. Requiring signatures from members of at least two parties (or independents) would also focus minds on using EDMs for something other than a simple extension of usual party hostilities.

And third? Have a quiet word with Robert Halfon, the champion of the unsuported EDM. In the current Parliamentary session, the newly elected Conservative MP for Harlow, has managed an impressive 10 of the 33 EDMs or amendments which have only been signed by one MP so far.

His EDM about fibreglass sheep in Harlow, however, is not one of those. Not only has it won four signatures, they cross party lines too. So lovers of Parliamentary action on fibreglass sheep can rest easy. They would be safe from this reforming axe. You can only have so much reform you know.

Thanks to Dizzy for the tip on how to get the data about number of signatures per EDM.

When I first heard about the idea of having televised debates I was naturally angry. One of my arguments to the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK (No2) was that Parliament had not debated the issue of extending the franchise to convicted prisoners. That was way back in 2004. In spite of the UK being under an obligation to abide by the Convention and Court decision, Parliament dissolved without debating the issue. And yet, Alan Johnson rushed through legislation banning methedrone at the last minute! At least the televised debate made history of the notion that a vote for the Lib Dems would be pointless, because now it is a 3 horse race.

It all hangs on a hung Parliament. There may even be a second general election. Then, there is the 1st June 2010 Council of Ministers meeting when the legality of the general election under international law will be the subject of discussion. In March, the Council of Europe warned the government that convicted prisoners must get the vote before the general election, or else. There is a danger that the UK will be declared a Rogue State. Comparisons are already being drawn between the sanctions imposed upon Belarus, and the failure to sanction the UK in a like manner. The other 46 Member States are demanding that the UK plays by the rules or leaves the Council of Europe. Also, since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the UK is in danger of being kicked out of the European Union.

The Lib Dem peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill has long been a champion of voting rights for convicted prisoners. Isn’t it about time that the rest of the Lib Dems properly address this issue? This issue will be the real test of whether Nick Clegg is getting away from old style politics. Bearing in mind that the issues at stake are Democracy, Rule of law, and Human rights. How can the Lib Dems not be in support of these 3 basic principles which form the European Convention? The eyes of 800 millions European citizens are watching this country and the general election race. Nick Clegg needs to put distance between the Lib Dems on the one hand and Labour and Tory on the other. He will not do this by burying his head in the sand.

John Hirst is the Legal, Media and Political adviser to the Association of Prisoners, representing 83,000 members. A committed prison reformer who went from law breaker to law-maker whilst in custody, and is the most prolific prisoner litigant in penal history. He won prisoners the right of access to speak to the media, and to set up a trade union, and has won two cases at the European Court of Human Rights. The last being the Prisoners Votes Case. He says, “Having served time under both the Conservatives and Labour, it is time to give the Lib Dems a fair crack at the whip.”

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email  if you are interested in contributing.

Dizzy Thinks: I thought I would just pass a quick comment on Jack Straw’s decision to veto the Information Commissioner on the issue of Cabinet minutes on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Firstly, the Tories are bloody idiots to support the Government on this…

It’s taken thirty-six years but last week it finally happened. I found myself – however I might wish for it to be otherwise – agreeing with an article in the Daily Mail. It was a stingingly accurate critique of the Labourlist group blog which has been online for a while now but was “launched” last Thursday.

Labourlist is not something that I’d normally spare much thought about. I’ve been happy to drift away from the day-to-day dogfights of British politics since I stood down as a Special Adviser at the 2001 General Election in an effort to reclaim my life and start up some of my own projects. But I have found something sickly compelling about the way Labourlist has unfolded into a tragi-comedy that reveals more than it should about the troubled relationship the Labour Party has with the internet.

You can read the full piece – and it’s well worth a read – here. It’s also interesting to note that in the comments, Alex Hilton of Recess Monkey / Labour Home agrees with the analysis.

Amusing side-point: Jack Thurston did actually study at Berkeley, not just in Berkeley (this at/in thing has been one of the controversies surrounding Derek Draper).

PS Derek: if you’re reading this, here’s a free tip. When you receive a letter from someone, does them lapsing into CAPITAL LETTERS AT VARIOUS POINTS make you think (a) crikey, that really makes the point powerfully, or (b) I wonder if they’d be using green ink if they were handwriting this? Now look at some of your own headlines…

UPDATE: Dizzy Thinks has a nice line in satire today too.

I can reveal that this site has indeed been set-up by someone heavily linked with Derek Draper. Adrian McMenamin, a former Downing Street advisor and the man that headed up Labour’s rapid rebuttal Excalibur system prior to 1997 appears to be behind the site. What’s more, his attempts to hide it were not quite good enough.

Full story on his blog here.

As for the blog in question, it’s worth noting the, er…, interesting choice of some attack material. For example, under the headline David Cameron’s cynical abuse of Parliament, we get the news that Cameron sometimes refers to Gordon Brown as “you” during PMQs rather than saying “the Prime Minister”. ‘Cynical abuse’? Umm, well…

Hat tip: Dizzy Thinks: Is Purnell clearing out his skeletons?

The shortlists do, of course, represent the subjective opinions of the judges, so congratulations if you’ve been shortlisted but don’t worry if you haven’t – as always, the standards were high and there were tough decisions to make. The awards are a bit of fun that we hope will highlight some of the best examples of Liberal Democrat blogging and introduce you to some blogs you might not have read before.

I know you’re on tenterhooks, but assuming you haven’t skipped this bit already I have three announcements before we proceed.

The first is a reminder that the winner of the Best non-Liberal Democrat politics blog category will be decided by a public vote here on Liberal Democrat Voice, so please have a read of the nominated blogs and then head on over to the sidebar or to the bottom of this post to cast your vote.

Secondly, a plug for the awards ceremony itself. If you’re coming to party conference in Bournemouth, do head along to Old Harry’s Bar in the Marriott Highcliff Hotel from 9.45pm on Saturday. They’ll be refreshments on arrival (thanks to soon-to-be-announced sponsors), so come early!

Finally, I’m very pleased to announce that, with the kind agreement of Tim’s widow, Baroness Garden, the award for the best blog by a Liberal Democrat holding public office will from now on be known as The Tim Garden Award, in honour of Lord Garden, a blogger for many years, who died last year.

Without further ado, here are the shortlists.

Best new Liberal Democrat blog (started since 1st August 2007)
Always win when you’re singing
Because Baronesses are people too
Councillor Neil Harrison’s Cotham Blog
Diana Smith
Owen Temple
The People’s Republic of Mortimer

Best use of blogging or social networking by a Liberal Democrat
Duncan Hames on Twitter
Baroness Ros Scott’s campaign for party president
Steve Webb on Facebook
Millennium Elephant’s bloggers’ interviews with prominent Liberal Democrats

The Tim Garden Award (for the best blog by a Liberal Democrat holding public office)
Because Baronesses are people too
Brian Robson – Lee Green Councillor
Eaten by missionaries
Mary Reid’s blog
Peter Black AM
Richard Baum

Best non-Liberal Democrat politics blog
Bad Science
Comment is Free
Dizzy Thinks
London: Mayor and More
Political Betting

Best posting on a Liberal Democrat blog (since 1st September 2007)
BNP debate at the Oxford Union: an eyewitness account (Hug a Hoodie)
Day 2744: Sarky v Mandy (The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant)
Is a lack of evidence enough reason to ban GM crops? (Liberal Polemic)
My inner disugsted colonel (The People’s Republic of Mortimer)
Nasty ‘Nice’ Tories’ Latest: Back to the Workhouse (Love and Liberty)
Positive Discrimination (The Yorksher Gob)

Liberal Democrat Blog of the Year
Dib Lemming
Jock’s Place
Liberal England
Love and Liberty
Neil Stockley
The People’s Republic of Mortimer

Those are the shortlists – find out the winners on Saturday. In the mean time, vote now for the Best non-Liberal Democrat politic blog:

On the Democrat side, the previous three winners all went on to be their party’s nominee. It’s five out of seven overall since 1980.

On the Republican side, the previous four winners all went on to be their party’s nominee, and again it’s five out of seven since 1980.

If you look at only those contests where there was no incumbent President or Vice-President standing (as was the case yesterday for both sides), then the Iowa winner went on to be their party’s nominee four out of seven times overall: Reagan lost in 1980 to HW Bush, Dole won in 1996, GW Bush won in 2000; Mondale won in 1984, Dukakis lost to Gephardt in 1988, Clinton lost to Harkin in 1992, Kerry won in 2004.

Other notable comments from around the blogs: Winners and Losers on Freethink, a typically lively comment thread on Political Betting, the implications for racism in the US on Dizzy Thinks, the impact of young voters on Daily Kos, another round up - this time with speech extracts – on Easter Lemming and then there’s the really big question.

UPDATE: And now, the elephant has spoken.

Certainly at first glance, it looks like it could turn out to be an interesting innovation, and the site does not present itself as being a partisan cheerleader for any particular party:

Political Hearsay was founded by Darren Andrews, a young Internet Entrepreneur based in South Birmingham.

This website offers a fresh, new, and innovative design that plans to bring politics into the 21st century.

It is realistic to say that politics is currently failing to reach out to the younger generation. However, Political Hearsay will bring this important subject to Internet like never before – appealing to the young and older generation alike.

Here, users will be able to vote for leaders of the three main political parties along with the Labour Cabinet Ministers. The site will average out all the votes cast and display a unique 5 star rating for each politician. An exclusive graph will also be on display to show how their popularity and support from the public has changed over time.

However, on second glance, there is a persistent pro-Conservative bias in the descriptions given of politicians.

For example, David Cameron’s write-up mentions (reasonably enough) his successful conference speech without notes. But David Davis’s write-up doesn’t mention his conference speech flop, but does have space to say, “he has consistently attracted support on a personal level from all sections of the party”.

But it’s not a matter of all of the write-ups being positive, because look – for example – at some of the wording used for David Milliband: “In January 2007 he sparked minor controversy by saying there was no evidence organic food was better than conventionally grown produce”. In fact, saying very little about someone’s overall career but finding the space to quote a recent controversy is a common feature across several of the Labour biographies.

Harriet Harman is perhaps the most extreme case, as you can see from her full write-up: “In March 2006, Harman relinquished her Ministerial responsibilities for electoral administration and reform of the House of Lords. She stated that this was to avoid any potential conflict of interest after her husband announced that he would be investigating a number of loans made to the Labour Party which had not been disclosed to party officers. ” No mention of any of her achievements, other major posts or career – just one negative story.

More subtly, some of the points presented as neutral or positive in biographies arguably are really negative ones in disguise – such as saying that Brown has stressed he won’t change key Blair policies (when of course Brown’s message is that he has changed).

What to make of this all then?

I tried getting in touch with the person who runs the site before writing this piece to get their response, but the feedback form just gives me an error message at the moment. So if you’re reading this Darren, do post a response in the Comments.

[UPDATE: He has now been in touch - thanks Darren. See comment no.4 below]