A resident of Camden in London, UK has written an open letter to his local MP, Kier Starmer, leader of the Labour party and parliamentary opposition.
In Lord Sumption’s view, he does “not believe that that act [Public health control of disease act of 1984] confers on the government the powers which the government is purported to exercise because it is a basic principle of the British constitutional law that you cannot invade fundamental rights” He then warns about governments being too general about what they are up to, something that can never happen when it threatens Liberty: “You’ve got to be specific about it and the reason for that is that if you use general words to justify draconian invasions[erosion] of fundamental rights there’s too big a risk that it will pass unnoticed in the course of the parliamentary process.”
This warning rings alarms when considering the constant criticism, in the media and in the street of government being too vague, confused, undecided, using mixed messaging, confused and flip-flopping. One other worrying point from the following section, mentions the limited powers of government through the Public health control of disease act of 1984 and how the “only specific language in the public health act which justifies invasions of liberty relates to people who are believed on reasonable grounds to be infectious.” One’s thoughts are immediately drawn to the mandating of face masks and the recent and frankly sinister government covid campaign compelling the public to “act like you’ve got it”
Lord Sumption suggests that the government must have been legally advised “because they have plenty of legal advice” and so have deliberately used the Public health control of disease act of 1984 instead of using the more applicable Civil Contingencies Act of 2004 in order to “avoid parliamentary scrutiny”
If that rightly or wrongly explains the government’s position where does it leave the opposition?
If led by a distinguished and highly knowledgeable legal brain like yourself, who I assume would know
that more government security, more holding to account could be exercised by parliament through The Civil Contingencies Act of 2004? Then why haven’t you and your party, as the official opposition, not kicked up hell and exposed the government for using the Public health control of disease act of 1984 instead of the more accountable Civil Contingencies Act of 2004?
You are best positioned to answer that question
I would appreciated if you would.
The question in the letter (why isn’t Kier Starmer holding the government to account?) is answered by Critical Thinking’s analysis of Sovereignty and Democracy; representative democracy will seldom act in the public interest because parliament is controlled by someone other than the public. Kier Starmer is a member of the unaccountable but globally powerful Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission is but one of many unaccountable, globally powerful organisations that form the structure of the overarching political economy.
Money is the mechanism through which our “democracy” is managed. Consequently, endogenous money (money for everyone) is a prerequisite for true democracy.