They really can’t stop them selves it seems, proving that they can be just as keen on controlling every aspect of our lives as the last lot. To counter the cultural pressures of thin models our new equalities minister has it seems decreed that the new approved size and shape to aspire to is size 14 and buxom. She will apparently be holding a body confidence summit to try to persuade fashion editors to impose a new body fascism on the fairer sex in this country. No longer will they need to aspire to being thin, instead they’ll just have to worry if they’re buxom enough and are they more hourglass than egg timer.
The idea of not dictating role models presumably wasn’t an option. But as now thin is undesirable and obviously being over weight remains a horrendous crime it can’t be much longer before we have a single government approved body type. Obviously banning veils/niqabs and other facial covering will make it easier to identify people who fail to achieve the new government approved look.
I look forward to seeing if Laurie Penny will be complaining about this for dictating body shapes to women, or if it’ll be ok as it presumably isn’t the evil Bikini body
This topic has already been covered incredibly well by other people so I’m actually going to just link to them, adding my voice to the many disappointed but not at all surprised voices responding to Mr Cleggs “shock” revelation that having asked the public for comment on what laws to repeal/amend he’s as much intention of listening as the last lot did with the “petitions to number 10″. Which is of course to say none at all – it would seem that the consultation is once more just a way to have some useful “quotes from the public” to wave around when they impose what ever they’ve already decided to impose on us – though not of course themselves as the most popular law to amend is the smoking ban which doesn’t apply in the palace of Westminster.
Anyway go and read the following for far better commentary.
Dick Puddlecote – Great repeal swindle
Taking Liberties – Your Freedom, His choice
and of course:
LegIron – Nick’s Nasties get a boost from their master
update: Snowolf’s – the one that was waiting is also a good read on the matter.
Whilst I obviously welcome our new overlords, I can’t help but notice that they seem to have an odd idea of electoral reform, and as Tom Harris observes it doesn’t really fit well with either the Tories claim to want to return power to the people, and quite odd that the LibDems seem to be happy going along with it.
The particular bit of reform that Mr Harris is concerned about is to change the vote of no-confidence in a government from a simple majority to 55%. Such a change only makes sense in that it allows a minority government (like say the Tories without the LibDems) more immune to votes of no confidence and actual majority governments virtually bullet proof. At present a simple majority would require 325 MP’s to vote against the government which would be quite a challenge especially as Sinn Fein have 5 MPs that never take up their seats. So even to get out the Tories with their current majority would require all but 9 non-Tory MPs to vote against them. For a 55% vote not even would every non Tory MP have to vote against the Government but 19 Tory MPs would have to rebel as well. Which as the vote would be heavily whipped means that 19 Tory MPs would have to be prepared to sacrifice their political careers (and expense accounts) for a non-confidence vote to pass, evidence suggests that MPs are unlikely to do this. This is as Dizzy says “not just an affront to democracy, it holds the power of Parliament in even greater contempt than the last lot did.”
Of course it gets worse, the form of PR that the ConDems seem to have decided to offer us is AV (alternative vote), which isn’t actually a form of proportional representation at all. It merely changes how the MPs are elected so the proportional of the national vote is still not relevant to the number of MPs any party may have sitting.
Mind you the LibDems would prefer AV+ which combines the problems of the above with
“party list” MPs thus entrenching larger national parties advantages even further and helping to lock out small parties and independents.
Update: Dizzy has further analysis of the 55% vote issue, and observes that it could be used by minority parties in coalitions to force change of government (or at least threaten it) with out recourse to an election. Which quite frankly is possibly worse than my initial take on matters.
