Greenie Cabinet clear-out?

[HStorm]

A conspiracy theory is being whispered in Environmentalist circles about the recent Cabinet re-shuffle. Margaret Beckett, a nuclear skeptic, was removed from the Department of Environment to be replaced by David Milliband who is generally in favour of more nuclear power stations, while one of the Junior state secretaries, Elliott Morley, Minister for Climate Change, lost his job.

Morley himself has complained that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hadn't been involved enough in the current enquiry into whether there should more nuclear power stations.

Anyone reckon there's anything in all this?

[Naselus]

Nope. There should be more nuclear power stations. The experts thnik so, and it's their opinion that matters, really. Who cares what the MP for Durich-on-the-Crapper, who used to be a plumber, feels about nuclear power, when Professor Iknowevery Thingaboutclimatechange, PhD says that they're the only way out of the current situation?

[HStorm]

naselus said:

Nope. There should be more nuclear power stations. The experts think so, and it's their opinion that matters, really. Who cares what the MP for Durich-on-the-Crapper, who used to be a plumber, feels about nuclear power, when Professor Iknowevery Thingaboutclimatechange, PhD says that they're the only way out of the current situation?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be more power stations, I'm just asking whether Blair was indeed pulling a dirty trick to force the legislation through.

And the issue of "it's what the experts say, who cares what the MP's think?" sounds eerily similar to Tony Parsons grumbling about the police being deprived of new powers last year. When it comes to civil rights, the "experts'" opinion is secondary, but when it comes to nuclear power, the "experts'" opinion is everything, is that it? We can't have it both ways.

[Naselus]

I'd contest the idea that the police are supposedly civil rights experts, at very least.

And frankly, this is a damned sight closer to an emergency than the supposed breakdown of law and order in this country. The enquiry as to whether there should be more nuclear power stations shouldn't have much to do with anyone in government as they have no idea about the consequences either way.

[HStorm]

naselus said:

I'd contest the idea that the police are supposedly civil rights experts, at very least.

So would I, but I reckon they have enough experience to be considered some kind of authority in the field of security, which was part of the matter. Not that I in any way agreed with their demands.

The enquiry as to whether there should be more nuclear power stations shouldn't have much to do with anyone in government as they have no idea about the consequences either way.

That's saying that national energy and environmental policy should be handled by people who are above public accountability, which I can't accept. The principle of Parliament making these decisions must still stand; yes, the experts must offer the evidence and can make proposals, but the elected representatives must make the final decisions based on what experts on both sides say. Picking and choosing which national policies they are allowed to make the decisions on contradicts the whole point of having elected Governments in the first place.

I'm not saying, by the way, that the Parliamentary system is presently consistent in its application of this, especially with the Presidentialist style of the current leader. But that doesn't mean we should just give up and stop encouraging proper use of Parliamentary decision-making. If we were to accept that, what few restraints there are on leaders of the likes of Tony Blair would just evaporate.

[modeski]

Absolutely right, HStorm. The UK is still a functioning parliamentary democracy, and despite the machinations of Blair's administration, we can still use our MPs to hold the government to task on many issues. Regardless of how cynically we might regard this process, to dismiss it is tantamount to surrender.

MPs are elected to make decisions on our behalf. Granted, they're not always acting in our best interests, but notionally at least we grant them permission to do what they see fit, on the understanding that it's their jobs come election time if they don't. Given that MPs cannot be expected to be expert on everything (anything?), it is only right that they consult the true experts in whatever field and use their reasoning to come to a conclusion that they can (and will) later justify.

The system needs constant public scrutiny, but it works for the most part and should be upheld.