ID cards. Laws against insulting or offending religious viewpoints. Detention for 28 days without trial. Orders which can make legal acts into criminal offences. Abolition of various long-standing elements of the constitution, with no real replacements and no increase in democratic accountability.

Terrible, isn't it? And yet, all of these things pale into insignificance next to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

This bill gives ministers the power to introduce or amend legislation without parliamentary approval. Yes, that's right. This includes the introduction of new criminal offences and modification of the definitions of existing criminal offences. We would be left electing 659 MPs so they can sit powerless whilst the government passes whatever laws it likes. Worse still, ministers are directly appointed by the Prime Minister and could well be Lords rather than MPs. And, due to Labour's botch-job of constitutional reform, the Lords are appointed. So we are faced with the prospect of a PM being able to appoint entirely unelected people to a position where they can pass new laws, without any possibility of democratic veto.

These are not the characteristics of a liberal democracy. These powers have more in common with autocratic and despotic systems of government. The idea that unelected officials can change the very laws of the land is anathema to liberalism, democracy and, if history is any guide, basic common sense.

So what am I trying to say here? That the Tory "demon eyes" poster was right, and that Blair is a modern-day Hitler? No, I am not. It's hard enough arguing for civil liberties without personal comparisons to Hitler being brought into play. But, as a case study in the decline of a broadly liberal democracy, the period immediately before Hitler's rise to power can be instructive.

The real parallel is not with Hitler, but with his predecessor, German President Paul von Hindenburg (under Hitler, the roles of President and Chancellor were combined into the role of Führer). Von Hindenburg was President from 1925 until his death in 1934. Under his presidency, various laws were enacted, strengthening the role of the President. Amongst these new powers was the power to create new emergency laws without the consent of the Reichstag (article 48), the power to dissolve the Reichstag (article 25), making the limitation on the former power useless, and power over the appointment of the Chancellor (article 53).

It was not von Hindenburg who annexed Austria, invaded Poland or instituted the "Final Solution". But without von Hindenburg's massive extension of executive power, it is doubtful whether Hitler would have been able to assume absolute power in the manner in which he did. von Hindenburg was not an evil man, but the tools he created were of immense use to a man who was evil. By establishing the supremacy of the executive over the legislature, von Hindenburg laid the foundations for Hitler's later appropriations of further powers.

I don't believe that Blair appreciates this lesson from history. It is impossible to examine his recent record - just go back to the top of this post to remind yourself - without realising that, in the wrong hands, the powers he is creating could be extremely dangerous. We face many challenges ahead, with international terrorism, declining energy supplies, realignment of international power structures and doubtless myriad threats of which we cannot presently conceive. There may well be ample excuse for any aspirant dictator to use the tools that Blair has created, justifying tyranny by invoking some great threat. If this happens, our ID cards may become a means of imprisoning us, laws against religious offence may be used to prevent debate, the 28-day detention rule may be extended into a form of internment and the principle of ASBOs may be extended to ban any activity deemed "undesirable".

It is often said that Blair cares greatly about his "legacy". If he really does care about this, he would be wise to consider just how terrible that legacy might be if he continues on his present course.

I should point out, at this point, that much of the above post strays into what would commonly be regarded as paranoia. I am not unaware of this, and so I must point out that I do not, by any means, believe that the above scenario is inevitable. I generally subscribe to the views laid out in Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and that, as it is a road, it is possible to travel in either direction. It is my belief that, as a general principle, the only direction we should ever travel in is the direction of greater liberty and democratic accountability. To travel towards greater authoritarianism and less democratic accountability is to risk going too far, and arriving at tyranny.