Gordon's law
As Gordon Brown approaches his first year in office this coming (27 June), the legal publishers have published an analysis showing, they say, that Mr Brown has introduced 17% more legislation in his first year, than the average number of laws introduced year-by-year under Tony Blair.
This, despite the fact that Mr Brown's last autumn was pretty short, and, according to many commentators, pretty thin. Perhaps it reflects an initial burst of enthusiasm under the new Brown premiership. I suspect not.
One might expect Sweet and Maxwell, as legal publishers, to be rather pleased by this apparent legislation inflation. But far from it. And the more laws Parliament passes each year, then inevitably the less time our MPs and peers have to scrutinise them properly.
Does more mean better?
According to Sweet and Maxwell's figures, the amount of legislation passed by Parliament has been rising steadily over the last 30 years. Gordon Brown's 2,823 new laws in his first 12 months - eight a day - show a 64% rise on the Thatcher premiership, when she passed a mere 1,724.
The interesting thing is that much legisation, notably in the field of criminal justice, is merely repealing laws that were passed only a few years earlier.
The big question of course, is whether more means better? On the contrary, many would say.
The former Conservative Chancellor Lord (Geoffrey) Howe once argued there ought to be a strict overall limit on the amount of legislation there is - so that every time a government passed a new law they would be obliged to repeal something else.
But that, I suppose, would require a new law.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 23rd Jun 2008, barriesingleton wrote:IT HAS ALL BEEN SAID
Gordon is a truncated being trying to be Super Man and failing. The irony is that he kept trying to define Britishness . . .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 23rd Jun 2008, michaelmj wrote:I would say it is pretty clear that more is not better, indeed the "quality" is inversely proportional to the "width". The higher the number of laws being made, the longer and more incomprehensible they have become. It is not just a matter of repealing earlier laws but too often of amending and correcting unworkeable provisions that had nto been subject to adequate scrutiny. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figure but have seen many references to New Labour having created 3,000 additional criminal offences. That is quite extraordinary. And this "devaluing of the currency" is not just confined to English law. While I remain (just about) a supporter of the EU, in my days working on EU policy, I would despair of the treadmill of Directives but even worse a general approach in negotiations within Whitehall but more particularly in Brussels of drafting "here today, gone tomorrow" political statements not laws with potentially profound effects on lives and livelihoods.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 23rd Jun 2008, barriesingleton wrote:AMAZING GRACE?
I spotted Alistair Darling bailing like mad to stop the New Labour boat sinking, on the Andrew Marr show (Sunday). He came out with the priceless plea: 'The next election is not a referendum on us.'
Is he by any chance descended from Grace?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 24th Jun 2008, thegangofone wrote:I am solidly for the more is not better. Particularly when its the posturing of the 42 days. The US manages on 8 we apparently are so inefficient we need 42.
Its not just the legislative volume.
The move towards Quangos - which I think recall they were going to reverse in 1995 is part of a strategy of "being seen to do things with no political risk but possible benefit".
42 days will probably never be used, but it could be abused in the future so I am agin it.
Quangos are fire-walled from the politicians. Credit can still be taken.
Criticisms of the Northern Rock/credit crunch scandal could be deflected partially to the Bank of England. In fairness it would seem some attention does need to be paid to the BofE / FSA / Chancellor relationships. But that is political attention.
Brown as a politician has no credibility.
Brown will say he is listening after potential 10p annihilation.
Then the GM companies kick up after the effects of the biofuel strategy impact on world food prices. 80% of the public in a consultation process said they were against it. Now the government via Woolas want to lead a debate. Do they have any significant new information? No. Will they win? No. Will there even be a debate when its so clearly going to be lost? Probably not.
Is he looking at the big picture? Is there a viable strategy barring "Bendy Wendy" Alexander for the 2010 Scottish independence referendum? No. Will the political map probably be redrawn even if the SNP don't get the 66% I think they need? Probably.
Brown apparently does not like to be compared to Major.
But he does have the same problem that politicians are already looking over his shoulder and the public are crying "Next!".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 25th Jun 2008, Peter Dewsnap wrote:What's the point in writing new laws? Their efforts would be spent much better in enforcing what we have currently.
Peter D South Carolina
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)